THE AUTHORS:
Margaux Vandewalle, Associate at Asafo & Co.
Annabelle Artus, Associate at Asafo & Co.
Firas Aidi, Associate at Asafo & Co.
This article was featured in Jus Mundi‘s 2025 Arbitration Year in Review, an annual publication analyzing arbitration developments across 40+ jurisdictions on 6 continents. This edition brings together young practitioners and senior experts to capture the year’s most significant legislative reforms, enforcement trends, and institutional innovations.
The 2025 Reform of French Arbitration Law
The year 2025 marks a pivotal moment for French arbitration. Fourteen years after the landmark Decree of 13 January 2011, the French Ministry of Justice has initiated a comprehensive overhaul of domestic and international arbitration law. In March 2025, the French Ministry of Justice received the long-awaited Report on the Reform of French Arbitration Law (“Report”) produced by a comprehensive working group co-chaired by François Ancel (Judge at the Cour de cassation) and Professor Thomas Clay. The Report proposes the creation of a French Code of Arbitration aimed at modernising French arbitration law thereby strengthening Paris as one of the world’s foremost arbitration hubs.
Towards a French Code de l’Arbitrage
One of the most significant innovations is the proposal to create a standalone French Code de l’Arbitrage, comprising 146 articles and 40 reform proposals. The draft Code is designed to be self-sufficient and minimizes references to other instruments. It also provides a dedicated procedural framework for post-arbitral judicial proceedings, including annulment actions.
Unifying Domestic and International Arbitration
The envisaged project seeks to unify the rules applicable to domestic and international arbitration. For instance, the draft abandons the traditional reference to “commerce” for defining international arbitration and the application of trade usages, opting instead for a clear definition of internationality within the Code itself.
Substantive Improvements: Flexibility, Protection, and Efficiency
- Flexibility
The considered reform introduces several measures to increase procedural flexibility, including the simplification of the arbitration agreement’s formal requirements, the recognition of electronic awards, and the possibility for parties to agree on electronic communication of awards.
- Protection of Parties
The draft Code introduces mechanisms that prevent denial of justice, such as empowering the supporting judge (juge d’appui) to intervene when a party is unable to pay arbitration costs. The proposals also entail the prohibition of advance waivers of challenging awards, to ensure procedural fairness. Finally, it recommends specific rules for consumer, employment and family arbitrations.
- Third Parties
The draft Code also strengthens third parties’ procedural rights. It provides for their voluntary intervention before the court of appeal and recognizes third-party opposition against judicial rulings on awards.
- Efficiency
The envisaged reform excludes appeals of arbitral awards except in exceptional cases, and eliminates the suspensive effect of annulment proceedings, with the aim of reducing delays and enhancing the finality of awards.
It also considers the possibility for the tribunal to consolidate related proceedings, addressing an increasingly common feature of complex multiparty disputes.
Finally, it empowers arbitrators to liquidate penalties.
Reaffirmed Autonomy of Arbitration
The draft Code affirms the contractual nature of the relationships between arbitrators, parties, and arbitral institutions.
It also enshrines the autonomy of the arbitration agreement, thereby strengthening the compétence-compétence principle and party autonomy in choosing applicable law.
Independence, Impartiality, and Confidentiality
The draft Code codifies the principle of independence and impartiality of arbitrators throughout the arbitral proceedings, with a strict duty of disclosure.
The contemplated reform also addresses the longstanding debate on confidentiality, proposing to extend the principle to international arbitration and clarify its scope.
Adjustments and Promotion: Enhancing Coherence and Visibility
To ensure coherence, the envisaged reform rationalizes the interaction between the new draft Code and other legal texts, promotes judicial specialization, and clarifies the role of supporting judges (juges d’appui) who are granted significantly expanded powers, including:
- to safeguard equality and party autonomy;
- to order the production of documents;
- to enforce provisional or conservatory measures ordered by the tribunal; and
A separate book within the draft Code dedicated to the recognition and enforcement of awards is considered. Key innovations include:
- unifying all exequatur and annulment proceedings before the juge judiciaire;
- stronger recognition of awards, including the possibility of initiating proceedings to declare foreign awards unenforceable;
- rules governing the effects of annulment on related awards;
- a mechanism allowing courts to invite the tribunal to rectify the award to avoid annulment.
The envisioned reform also includes measures to promote French arbitration law domestically and internationally, such as translating the Code, organizing promotional events, and conducting impact studies on the economic influence of the arbitration community in France.
The French Minister of Justice has announced that the creation of a dedicated arbitration Code, is expected in autumn 2026.
The Report and underlying reform of French arbitration law represent a decisive step towards modernizing and consolidating France’s position as a leading arbitration seat. By codifying and unifying the legal framework, enhancing procedural flexibility and protection, and reaffirming foundational principles, the reform addresses both domestic needs and international expectations. It is poised to strengthen the attractiveness of Paris and the French legal system for arbitration in a competitive global environment.
Beyond the reform-related advances in French arbitration law, decisions of French courts in 2025 continue to cement France’s position as one of the world’s leading arbitration seats. Through key rulings, French judges have once again reaffirmed the firmly pro-arbitration stance of domestic courts. Below is a selection of decisions that inform on key aspects of arbitration from a French perspective.
Annulment Proceedings Before French Courts
Jurisdictional Review Exclusively, Merits Reserved
French courts continue to clarify the narrow path of jurisdictional review under Article 1520-1 CPC.
One of the notable rulings is the Court of Appeal decision in Oschadbank v. Russia (I) (Paris, 1 July 2025, RG No. 24/05336), discussed in earlier reports. In a long-awaited decision, the Paris Court of Appeal drew on reasoning of the Cour de cassation decision and rejected the jurisdictional objections raised by Russia:
- the ratione temporis jurisdiction is assessed only by the date the dispute arose;
- from a ratione loci standpoint, Russia could not exclude a region from treaty scope on territorial grounds since those issues go to merits, not jurisdiction;
- the treaty’s definition of investment contains no time limit and protects existing investments at the time of the dispute, rejecting Russia’s claim that only investments created as “foreign” were protected, thereby accepting the jurisdiction of the tribunal ratione materiae.
The Court further reaffirmed that arbitral jurisdiction must be reviewed exclusively against the State’s treaty arbitration offer and that no external conditions on the temporal or territorial scope of treaty protection may be imported from substantive treaty protections. This decision reaffirms the principle of non-revision on the merits applicable to annulment proceedings and the limited scope of judicial review applied by the Paris Court of Appeal under 1520-1 CPC.
In Cengiz v. Libya (Civ. 1st, 12 February 2025, No. 21-22.978) the Cour de cassation (Cengiz v. Libya reaffirmed its strict approach, preserving a clear boundary between jurisdictional control and substantive treaty protections. The dispute involved an ICC award seated in Paris ordering Libya to pay US$51m in damages after attacks on project sites during the Libyan uprisings. Libya sought annulment of the award alleging that the protections granted under the Libya-Turkey BIT (2009) were conditional upon the investment being legal under Libyan law, and that such condition was a prerequisite for activating the BIT arbitration clause. The Court rejected Libya’s contentions and confirmed the Paris Court of Appeal decision. It recalled that in international investment protection, State consent to arbitration is derived from the continuous arbitration offer in a treaty and that said offer is autonomous and independent of the validity of the underlying investment. In doing so, the Cour de cassation clarified the distinction between jurisdiction and merits, confirming that the legality of the investment pertained to the merits.
The subsequent decision in Selmani v. Kosovo (Paris, 21 October 2025, RG No. 22/15877) reaffirmed the Court of Appeal’s position on jurisdictional review in annulment proceedings. In Selmani v. Kosovo, the claimant had operated 61 petrol stations in Kosovo under UNMIK-era licences granted in 2000, later terminated after Kosovo’s 2008 independence. He commenced ICC arbitration in 2019 under the 2014 Kosovo investment law arguing the statute conferred retroactive arbitral jurisdiction. The tribunal accepted jurisdiction solely over post-2014 State acts, declining competence for earlier conduct. On annulment, the Paris Court of Appeal drew a distinction between the scope ratione temporis of a BIT and the jurisdiction ratione temporis of an investment arbitral tribunal, and held that the temporal reach of the investment law governs substantive investment protection, not the existence or scope of the State’s offer to arbitrate, and therefore sits outside Article 1520-1 review.
Arbitrator Independence: Defining the Boundaries
French courts keep refining the contours of arbitrators’ disclosure obligations and independence standards. The resulting decisions demonstrate judicial restraint in annulment proceedings.
In CWT Travel v. Seitur (Civ. 1st, 7 May 2025, No. 21-14.162), the Cour de cassation addressed disclosure obligations regarding third parties. The case originated in a 1986 partnership agreement enabling CWT to distribute travel services in Ecuador through Seitur under a co-branding model. After Seitur lost its IATA accreditation in 2012, CWT terminated the agreement and entered a new commercial partnership with Polimundo, years before the ICC arbitration was initiated. One of the ICC arbitrators had failed to reveal family ties with Polimundo’s manager, a company listed as “other concerned entity” in the ICC case information sheet. Seitur sought annulment, arguing that this non-disclosure compromised impartiality under Article 1520-2 CPC.
The court rejected the annulment challenge, holding that disclosure obligations extend only to entities having “an actual interest in the outcome of the dispute”, and that in the matter at hand:
- the contractual obligations between Polimundo and CWT preexisted the arbitration involving CWT and Seitur began;
- Polimundo was not a party to the arbitration, and Seitur did not raise any claims, even indirectly, involving Polimundo; and
- any finding of wrongful termination against CWT under Dutch law could lead solely to award damages and would produce no financial or commercial effect vis-à-vis Polimundo.
The Oschadbank v. Russia (I) case also presented an inventive impartiality challenge. One co-arbitrator had sought authorization to file an amicus curiae brief before a U.S. court on a pure question of law – in support of claimants in a separate case where the Russian Federation was respondent. The court rejected the challenge, finding no independence issue since the amicus participation revealed no links to the parties, counsel, or witnesses in the arbitration.
As to impartiality, the court emphasized temporal considerations: the amicus brief addressed neither the dispute’s subject matter nor any related issue and was filed more than five years after the award was rendered. Consequently, it demonstrated no prejudice or bias during the arbitral proceedings.
Together, CWT Travel v. Seitur and Oschadbank v. Russia (I) underscore French courts’ demanding threshold for successful challenges based on independence and impartiality grounds.
Stay Is No Sword: French Courts Shield Off Enforcement from Dilatory Tactics
In 2025, French courts have refined the conditions under which courts may order a stay of proceedings (sursis à statuer) regarding recognition or enforcement of awards. Recent decisions confirm a coherent approach, aimed at preventing dilatory tactics and safeguarding the efficiency of the French exequatur regime.
In Eova v. El Sewedy Electric Power System Projects (Paris, 13 March 2025, RG No. 24/11322), the Paris Court of Appeal reaffirmed that the existence of a domestic parallel criminal investigation does not in itself justify staying proceedings. The case involved the debtor, Eova, seeking to stay the enforcement of an arbitral award rendered in Paris. Parallel to the exequatur appeal, Eova initiated a forgery (inscription de faux) procedure before French criminal courts, alleging that documents relied upon in arbitration were falsified. On that basis, it requested the conseiller de la mise en état to suspend enforcement under Article 1526 CPC. The Paris Court of Appeal refused to grant the stay pending the outcome of the criminal proceedings considering it would impermissibly restrict its office and improperly deprive it of its exclusive power to assess appeal grounds of the exequatur order.
In another case, the Paris Court of Appeal (Paris, 25 March 2025, RG No. 24/00739) dismissed the request for a sursis absent a pending procedure before the European Commission when asked to order a stay of proceedings on the basis that the European Commission had allegedly been seized in relation to unlawful State aid. Accordingly, a contrario, the commencement of proceedings before the Commission may constitute grounds for granting a stay. It also confirmed that the judge must assess the merits of the objection raised, and that neither lateness nor a party’s procedural conduct may justify rejecting the request.
Finally, the Paris Court of Appeal (Paris, 8 April 2025, Ord. No 23/16460 ; Paris, 8 April 2025, RG. No. 23/16464) ruled on a request for the stay of exequatur proceedings of a partial arbitral award liquidating a financial penalty (astreinte) pending the annulment proceedings against the partial award and other decisions of the tribunal. The Court held that a conflict with international public policy must arise directly from the specific arbitral award whose exequatur is requested, i.e., the partial award liquidating the astreinte, and cannot be based on alleged violations contained in a different award. Additionally, the court ruled that an award ordering the liquidation the astreinte is not manifestly contrary to international public policy.
Extension of the Compromissory Clause to Third Parties: Signature Is Not the Gate, Conduct Is the Key
The year offered a strong reaffirmation that non-signature does not equal non-consent when the facts place a party at the heart of contractual operations. In World Nature Resources v. Mercuria (Paris, 16 September 2025, No. 23/18252), the arbitration clause was contained in trade confirmations exchanged in the energy commodities market, and the court accepted that a non-signatory could be bound where contractual participation, negotiation conduct or operational implication made acceptance of the clause objectively plausible. This ruling confirmed that in the trading world, consent may emerge from transactional behaviour, commercial structure and objective counterpart expectations rather than handwritten execution ceremonies.
Two further decisions of the Paris Court of Appeal dated 20 May 2025 confirmed the same approach:
- In Stophytrav. SCEA (Paris, RG No. 24/08190), the Court addressed jurisdiction in a grain supply conflict arising from unperformed purchase confirmations. The contract was never signed, but purchase confirmations containing an arbitration clause had been exchanged, reflecting standard practice in the agricultural commodity sector. The defendant opposed jurisdiction, citing the lack of signature and contract formation. The Paris Court of Appeal ruled that the clause must exist in writing but requires no specific form of acceptance, and is legally autonomous from the main contract. Jurisdiction was affirmed based on proof of receipt and a consistent course of dealings.
- In Groupe Carré v. YH (Paris, RG No. 24/01866), the Court upheld jurisdiction in internal arbitration arising from unsigned cereal supply confirmations performed according to industry usage. While a party sought to invoke the clause against non-signatory affiliates, the Court confirmed that receipt and awareness of the arbitration agreement can be proven by any means, yet rejected any abstract or automatic group extension based solely on theoretical corporate or regulatory influence. Repeated performance under the same unsigned method, without objection, created a legitimate expectation of arbitration and supported jurisdiction.
No Consul, No Arbitration: The Sultan de Sulu Saga Ends in Paris
The Sultan de Sulu saga reached its French denouement in 2025. On 6 June 2023, the Paris Court of Appeal had refused enforcement of the partial award on jurisdiction, a decision subsequently upheld by the Cour de cassation on 6 November 2024. On 9 December 2025, applying identical reasoning, the Court of Appeal annulled the USD 14.92 billion final award, holding that the arbitration clause designating the British Consul General in Brunei had become inapplicable following the disappearance of that diplomatic function. The Court concluded that the clause was concluded intuitu officium (i.e., in consideration of the function itself) and that the disappearance of the office rendered it unenforceable, the effet utile doctrine being unable to override such an essential element of the parties’ consent to arbitrate.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Margaux Vandewalle is an associate at Asafo & Co., where she represents African governments and state-owned entities in high-stakes cross-border disputes across a wide range of sectors. She also advises African governments on complex legal and strategic aspects of maritime boundary delimitation. Margaux is a graduate of Université Paris I Panthéon-Sorbonne, Université Paris II Panthéon-Assasand Georgetown University Law Center (LL.M.). She is admitted in Paris and New York.
Karim Zein is a member of the New York and Paris bars and an international arbitration Associate at Simmons & Simmons (Paris office). His practice focuses on international commercial and investment arbitration. Karim also lectures in International Commercial and Trade Law at Université Panthéon-Assas. He is a graduate of Harvard Law School, Université Panthéon-Assas and Université Saint-Joseph de Beyrouth.
Discover more insights into the latest developments in arbitration in 2025 from around the world now
*The views and opinions expressed by authors are theirs and do not necessarily reflect those of their organizations, employers, or Daily Jus, Jus Mundi, or Jus Connect.
