On Wednesday, 25 March 2026, the Paris Court of Appeal hosted a conference entitled “Dialogue between Judges and Arbitrators.” Moderated by Prof. George Bermann (Professor at Columbia Law School), the panel brought together prominent figures from both the judiciary and the arbitral community: Mr Raoul Barlow (Counsel at Paris Court of Appeal), Dr Maxi Scherer (Professor at Queen Mary University of London), Dr Inka Hanefeld (Arbitrator and former judge), Dr Bernard Hanotiau (Arbitrator, Hanotiau Tossens Goldman), Prof. Dr Christa Hurni (Professor at University of Bern), and Mr David Knowles KC (Barrister at 39 Essex Chambers).

Prof. Bermann opened the discussion by underlining the importance of dialogue between national courts and arbitral tribunals. He explained that while arbitration relies on party autonomy and private adjudication, it cannot function in isolation from State courts. Courts intervene at various stages of the arbitral process, including in relation to jurisdiction, interim measures, challenges to arbitrators, annulment proceedings and enforcement. The question is therefore not whether judges and arbitrators interact, but how that interaction should be structured so as to preserve both the autonomy of arbitration and the legitimacy of judicial control.

The debate first turned to questions of jurisdiction. Prof. Bermann recalled that jurisdiction is assessed both by arbitral tribunals and by courts, but that the analysis differs significantly between commercial arbitration and investment arbitration. In commercial arbitration, the focus is generally on whether the arbitration agreement was validly concluded, whether it applies to the dispute, and whether it extends to non-signatories. In investment arbitration, jurisdictional analysis is more structured around ratione personae, ratione materiae, ratione loci and ratione temporis. Mr Knowles observed that the growing and sometimes counterproductive use of anti-suit injunctions has not helped achieve sound systemic solutions. He emphasised the need for greater harmonisation and for specialised judges to deal with challenges and enforcement.

Illustrating the method followed by French courts in investment arbitration, Mr Barlow referred to the Cour de Cassation’s Oschadbank decision of 7 December 2022. He highlighted that the French annulment judge now strictly focuses jurisdictional review on the conditions of the arbitration agreement contained in the investment treaty. This approach brings commercial and investment arbitration closer together and confirms a clear separation of roles between courts and tribunals. By centring the analysis on the arbitration agreement, French courts can exercise review while respecting the tribunal’s jurisdictional determinations within that framework.

The discussion then moved to arbitrator independence and impartiality. Dr Hanefeld identified two main practical issues for arbitrators, the first being disclosure obligations. In a context where challenges based on non-disclosure have significantly increased, arbitrators tend to favour “utmost transparency” in order to pre-empt objections. Second, she observed that, at the annulment stage, German courts require proof of very serious and unequivocal bias before setting aside an award. Annulment on this ground is therefore reserved for situations of particular gravity.

Expressing concern about increasing paranoia surrounding arbitrator independence and impartiality, Dr Hanotiau suggested that institutions should require parties to conduct their own research into publicly available information at the outset of proceedings, in line with the IBA Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest. He added that counsel should be under an obligation to raise objections as soon as they arise.

Prof. Dr Hurni explained that the Swiss approach is demanding but not paranoid. She referred to a procedural example in which the mere fact that counsel and an arbitrator had previously worked in the same law firm did not automatically disqualify the arbitrator. She underlined the procedural discipline imposed under the Swiss Federal Act on Private International Law, which requires parties to raise objections immediately.

Mr Barlow noted that impartiality is not unique to international arbitration but inherent to the act of judging itself. He added that French case law interpreting Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights informs the practices of both judges and arbitrators. Calling for prudence, common sense and pragmatism, Mr Barlow highlighted that annulments on these grounds remain extremely rare in France and often occur when an arbitral institution has itself removed an arbitrator.

Mr Knowles warned tribunals against adopting an overly defensive stance and stressed the importance of responsibility and restraint on the part of counsel when considering challenges.

On public policy, Dr Hanefeld referred to recent German jurisprudence setting aside an award on the basis that the tribunal had violated a party’s right to be heard. Dr Hanotiau shared his practice of formally requesting that parties undertake all possible investigations during the proceedings to confirm the absence of unlawful payments, thereby reinforcing the integrity of the process. Mr Knowles drew a distinction between corruption affecting the underlying transaction and corruption infiltrating the arbitral process itself. He emphasised that the latter requires coordinated action between courts and tribunals to safeguard the integrity of arbitration.

To conclude, Mr Barlow raised the possibility of importing into French law a mechanism inspired by Article 34 of the UNCITRAL Model Law. Such a mechanism would allow courts to stay annulment proceedings and give tribunals an opportunity to remedy certain procedural defects. He recognised, however, that practical questions remain, particularly concerning the reconstitution of a tribunal and the issue of costs.

Dr Hanefeld noted that, under German law, suspension of annulment proceedings is not foreseen, but there is a possibility for the court to remit the case to the previous tribunal. Prof. Bermann expressed support for preserving awards wherever possible, while noting that very few defects in arbitral proceedings or awards are actually curable upon remand from a court to a tribunal. Incapacity of a party, invalidity of an arbitration agreement, improper composition of the tribunal and violation of public policy cannot be cured. Once an award is rendered, violations of due process can also hardly be corrected. What can realistically be cured are only a tribunal’s failure to deal with a claim before it and the wrongful finding that a claim is non-arbitrable.

Mr Knowles concluded the conference by calling for increased exploration of avenues for dialogue between courts and arbitral institutions. He highlighted the model of the Standing International Forum of Commercial Courts, which brings together 67 jurisdictions worldwide and offers a platform for the exchange of best practices between national courts and arbitration institutions.

This article was originally published in PBA Bulletin on 17 April 2026, as part of a special edition curated by Paris Baby Arbitration (PBA), in collaboration with Jus Mundi and Jus Connect.

Read it here

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Fouad el Hage is currently completing a double major Bachelor’s program in Law and Economics at Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne and will join Norton Rose Fulbright LLP in June 2026 as an intern in the Arbitration, Compliance and Litigation department. He has consistently pursued professional experiences in international business law, with a particular focus on international arbitration. He intends to enroll in a specialised Master’s programme in these fields to deepen his expertise and to secure opportunities that will allow him to apply his newly acquired skills in practice.

Sofiane El Ouardi is currently completing a Master 2 in Arbitration and International Trade Law at Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne and is seeking a final-year internship in international arbitration from January to June 2026. He previously completed a Master 1 in General International Law, which gave him a strong foundation in international legal frameworks. Sofiane has interned at a law firm specializing in immigration law, where he gained experience in legal research, drafting procedural documents, and case management. He is also participating in the international arbitration moot competition organized by Sciences Po, as well as in several advocacy and eloquence competitions (Lysias, International Eloquence Competition, UNICEF Sorbonne), through which he further developed his oral advocacy and argumentation skills. His academic and professional interests focus on international commercial arbitration, international trade law, international banking and financial law, as well as sports arbitration and its interaction with European Union law.

Dialogue entre le juge et l’arbitre

Le mercredi 25 mars 2026, la Cour d’appel de Paris a organisé une conférence intitulée « Dialogue entre le juge et l’arbitre ». Animé par le Professeur George Bermann (Professeur à Columbia Law School), le panel réunissait plusieurs figures du monde judiciaire et arbitral : M. Raoul Barlow (Conseiller à la Cour d’appel de Paris), Dr Maxi Scherer (Professeure à Queen Mary University of London), Dr Inka Hanefeld (Arbitre et ancienne juge), Dr Bernard Hanotiau (Arbitre, Hanotiau Tossens Goldman), Prof. Dr Christa Hurni (Professeure à l’Université de Berne), ainsi que M. David Knowles KC (Barrister chez 39 Essex Chambers).

Prof. Bermann a ouvert la discussion en soulignant l’importance du dialogue entre juridictions étatiques et tribunaux arbitraux. Il a rappelé que l’arbitrage repose sur l’autonomie des parties et sur une justice privée, mais qu’il ne peut fonctionner en vase clos. Les juridictions nationales interviennent à différents stades de la procédure arbitrale, notamment en matière de compétence, de mesures provisoires, de récusation d’arbitres, de recours en annulation et d’exécution. La question n’est donc pas de savoir si juges et arbitres interagissent, mais comment cette interaction doit être organisée afin de préserver à la fois l’autonomie de l’arbitrage et la légitimité du contrôle juridictionnel.

Le débat s’est ensuite orienté vers la question de la compétence. Prof. Bermann a rappelé qu’elle fait l’objet d’évaluations tant par les cours que par les tribunaux, avec une distinction de fond fondamentale entre l’arbitrage commercial et l’arbitrage d’investissement. En matière commerciale, les questions portent sur la conclusion du contrat, la validité de la clause et son application aux non-signataires, tandis qu’en matière d’investissement, l’analyse se concentre sur la compétence ratione personae, ratione materiae, ratione loci et ratione temporis. M. Knowles a noté que l’utilisation croissante et contre-productive des injonctions « anti-suit » n’aide pas à atteindre de bonnes solutions systémiques, réitérant le besoin d’harmonisation et de recours à des juges spécialisés pour le contrôle et l’exécution.

M. Barlow a ensuite illustré la méthode du juge français en matière d’investissement en citant l’arrêt Oschadbank rendu par la Cour de cassation le 7 décembre 2022. Il a expliqué que le juge de l’annulation concentre désormais son contrôle de la compétence strictement sur les conditions de l’offre d’arbitrage contenue dans le traité, marquant un rapprochement entre l’arbitrage commercial et d’investissement et consacrant une séparation rigoureuse des rôles.

Le panel s’est ensuite penché sur le thème de l’indépendance et de l’impartialité. Dr Hanefeld a relevé une tendance poussant à la plus grande transparence possible, préférant révéler trop que pas assez, pour éviter les contestations tardives. Elle a noté qu’en Allemagne, l’annulation requiert la preuve d’un parti pris d’une extrême gravité. Dr Hanotiau a, pour sa part, dénoncé une forme de « paranoïa » dans la pratique des révélations, évoquant une affaire de la Chambre de commerce internationale en 2014 marquée par une multiplication de récusations infondées. Il a proposé que les institutions imposent aux parties d’effectuer, dès l’ouverture de la procédure, leurs propres recherches à partir des informations publiquement accessibles, en s’inspirant notamment des « Lignes Directrices de l’IBA sur les Conflits d’Intérêts dans l’Arbitrage International ».

Prof. Dr Hurni a présenté l’approche suisse comme exigeante mais mesurée, en l’illustrant par une affaire d’octobre 2019 dans laquelle le simple fait d’avoir exercé au sein du même cabinet ne suffisait pas à disqualifier un arbitre. Il a également insisté sur la rigueur de la discipline procédurale en droit suisse, qui impose de soulever toute objection sans délai, sous peine de forclusion définitive.

M. Barlow a rappelé qu’en France, l’exigence d’impartialité est inhérente à l’acte de juger en vertu de l’article 6 de la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme, appelant à un devoir de prudence, de bon sens et de pragmatisme face à des cas d’annulation qui demeurent extrêmement rares. M. Knowles a exhorté les conseils à faire preuve de responsabilité personnelle et de retenue avant de formuler des plaintes, suggérant qu’ils devraient être prêts à engager leur propre réputation professionnelle lors d’une récusation.

Dr Hanefeld a mentionné une décision allemande très récente ayant annulé une sentence parce que le tribunal avait exigé un standard de preuve de corruption excessivement strict, ce que la juridiction nationale a jugé contraire à la bonne foi. M. Hanotiau a partagé sa propre méthode proactive consistant à exiger formellement des parties qu’elles effectuent toutes les investigations possibles pour confirmer l’absence de paiements illégaux durant la procédure.

M. Knowles a finement différencié la corruption entachant la transaction initiale de celle infiltrant la procédure arbitrale elle-même, comme par le biais de faux témoignages. Il a souligné que cette dernière requiert une intervention conjointe des juridictions nationaux et des tribunaux pour préserver l’intégrité du processus.

En conclusion, M. Barlow a évoqué la perspective d’importer le mécanisme de l’article 34 de la loi type de la Commission des Nations Unies pour le droit commercial international (“CNUDCI“) en droit français. Cette réforme permettrait au juge de suspendre l’annulation pour laisser au tribunal l’opportunité de corriger certains vices procéduraux, bien que des questions pratiques subsistent quant à la reconstitution du tribunal et aux frais.

Dr. Hanefeld a précisé que seuls des vices procéduraux particulièrement graves devraient faire obstacle à cette remédiation. Prof. Bermann s’est montré favorable à l’idée de sauver les sentences, tout en notant que les opportunités réelles de correction prévues par l’article 34 restent limitées, ne pouvant par exemple pas guérir une incapacité ou une convention invalide, mais s’avérant utiles pour des demandes omises.

M. Knowles a clos les débats en appelant de ses vœux à saisir toutes les opportunités de coopération institutionnelle, soulignant le rôle précieux du Standing International Forum of Commercial Courts, qui réunit soixante-sept juridictions dans le monde, pour faire avancer le dialogue entre les juges et les institutions arbitrales.

Cet article a été initialement publié dans le PBA Bulletin le 17 avril 2026, dans le cadre d’une édition spéciale coordonnée par Paris Baby Arbitration (PBA), en collaboration avec Jus Mundi et Jus Connect.

À lire sur Le Biberon

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Fouad el Hage is currently completing a double major Bachelor’s programme in Law and Economics at Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne and will join Norton Rose Fulbright LLP in June 2026 as an intern in the Arbitration, Compliance and Litigation department. He has consistently pursued professional experiences in international business law, with a particular focus on international arbitration. He intends to enroll in a specialised Master’s programme in these fields to deepen his expertise and to secure opportunities that will allow him to apply his newly acquired skills in practice.

Sofiane El Ouardi is currently completing a Master 2 in Arbitration and International Trade Law at Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne and is seeking a final-year internship in international arbitration from January to June 2026. He previously completed a Master 1 in General International Law, which gave him a strong foundation in international legal frameworks. Sofiane has interned at a law firm specializing in immigration law, where he gained experience in legal research, drafting procedural documents, and case management. He is also participating in the international arbitration moot competition organized by Sciences Po, as well as in several advocacy and eloquence competitions (Lysias, International Eloquence Competition, UNICEF Sorbonne), through which he further developed his oral advocacy and argumentation skills. His academic and professional interests focus on international commercial arbitration, international trade law, international banking and financial law, as well as sports arbitration and its interaction with European Union law.