THE AUTHORS:
Frédéric Jeannin, Partner at Charles Russell Speechlys
Georgia Fullarton, Senior Associate at Charles Russell Speechlys
In 2025, French jurisprudence continued to uphold France’s position as a cornerstone jurisdiction in global arbitration. French courts demonstrated their strong support of arbitration and party autonomy and a willing engagement with the evolving realities of the global landscape and its impact on international dispute resolution. Far from being of only domestic relevance, the 2025 decisions of the French courts discussed here resonate at an international level, impacting core arbitral concepts – from the autonomy of the arbitration agreement, to the treatment of international public policy.
Autonomy of the Arbitration Agreement
In February 2025, the French Court of Cassation, in Judgment No. 21-22.978, ruled that an arbitral tribunal can maintain its jurisdiction without examining the legality of the underlying investment, upholding the principle that the arbitration agreement between the parties is autonomous from the underlying investment.
The Cengiz İnşaat Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S v. Libya ICC arbitration was based on the Libya – Turkey BIT (2009). Turkish construction conglomerate Cengiz argued that its housing projects were destroyed or disrupted by the 2011 Libyan uprisings of the Arab Spring, constituting a breach of protection and security by Libya under the BIT. The 2018 award in this case ordered Libya to pay Cengiz significant damages.
The position taken by the court in this case is consistent with longstanding French arbitration jurisprudence that a clear distinction is to be drawn between the agreement and the underlying investment, and that the validity of the investment itself does not bear on the validity and applicability of the agreement to arbitrate. In this matter, the court found that the tribunal did have jurisdiction to rule on investments which were alleged to not be in compliance with the relevant domestic law.
This case highlights that international arbitration is a meaningful form of dispute resolution for investors, and French courts will protect international arbitration awards by providing a unified and coherent arbitral regime to investment arbitration and general commercial arbitration matters alike, making the French courts a safe and predictable seat for commercial and investment disputes.
Robust Stance on Scope Expansion in Annulment Challenges
The 2025 appeal, No. 23/17836, in the LCIA arbitration between US-based restaurant franchisor Wingstop and its former franchisees, B Wing and Flight 83, concerned a dispute arising from the performance of a franchise agreement of the Wingstop brand in France. In the appeal of the partial award, the Paris Court of Appeal dismissed the franchisees’ annulment claim which had relied on three of the French Civil Code of Procedure (“FCPC”) Article 1520 grounds for annulment of an award. These included the ground that the arbitrator failed to address a counterclaim in damages, which it was argued amounted to a breach of mandate, justifying annulment of the award.
The court reaffirmed that a tribunal’s mandate is not strictly limited to the issues listed in the Terms of Reference. The Court reviewed the award and concluded that no such alleged omission had in fact occurred but that the sole arbitrator had specifically addressed and dismissed the counterclaim in question in both its partial and final awards. In its ruling, the Court also established the position that under French law, if an omission of a counterclaim is made, the remedy for that omission is to be found within the procedural remedies under the relevant arbitral rules (i.e., by requesting an additional award to address the omitted claim). The Court made a general distinction between a tribunal acting beyond the scope of its mandate (“Ultra Petita”), which may constitute a valid ground for annulment under Article 1520 of the FCPC, and a tribunal omitting to address a specific claim or argument (“Infra Petita”), which would not constitute a valid ground for annulment under Article 1520 FCPC.
The distinction between Ultra and Infra Petita and the legal consequences vary between jurisdictions, but this case reaffirms the French position with a clarity that is welcome.
Reaffirmation of France’s Arbitration-friendly Jurisprudence
In the Paris-seated ICC arbitration case of Gabonese Republic and others v Averda Environmental Services, the tribunal found corruption in the performance of the waste collection and public space maintenance contracts between the parties. The Tribunal “neutralised” the corruption by applying a 35% reduction in the sums due to the Respondent company, Averda. The Gabonese entities applied to the Paris Court of Appeal to set aside the award, arguing that it represented a violation of French public policy. The Paris Court of Appeal, in a Judgment No. 23/16145, rigorously examined the methodology applied by the Tribunal to account for the effects of corruption on the contracts and found that the methodology was sufficient for the stated purpose.
This case showed the French court traversing the line between demonstrating a real willingness to review the processes and methodologies applied by tribunals in making their awards, whilst ensuring that enforcement of such awards would not be allowed to lead to a benefit arising from illegitimate or unlawful conduct that had not been sufficiently addressed. This case serves as useful guidance to practitioners in their management of enforcement risk.
French Court’s Protection of Jurisdiction and Integrity of the Arbitral Process
In the ICC arbitration concerning Italian contractors Astaldi and Webuild (and others) against Venezuela, and the 2025 appeal proceedings No. 23/11499 that followed, the issue of whether a party can have a second chance to formulate and present its central arguments as presented in prior proceedings was considered.
The dispute in question arose from several contracts relating to Venezuela’s railway network. The relevant contracts did not provide for a singular jurisdiction, but rather some of the contracts granted exclusive jurisdiction to the Venezuelan courts and others provided for ad hoc arbitration of “exclusively technical” disputes.
The contractor group attempted to switch argument between the arbitral proceedings and the proceedings before the Appeal Court. The proceedings were commenced pursuant to a 2001 Italy–Venezuela framework agreement. The contractor group alleged non-payment, delays, and losses linked to hyperinflation. In the arbitral proceedings, the basis of the contractor group’s contention relied on a unilateral offer to arbitrate contained in Article XV of the Italy-Venezuela framework agreement, however the Tribunal found that this provision did not contain Venezuela’s consent to investor–state arbitration. Before the Paris Court of Appeal in 2025, the basis of the contractor group’s contention shifted to a position relying on the notion of creation of a contractual bond arising from the treaty, which meant that the treaty permitted commercial arbitration which extended to Venezuela (by virtue of its involvement in the contracts) even if no investor–state consent existed.
The Paris Court of Appeal was not impressed by the contractor group’s jurisprudential about-face and made a declaration of inadmissibility under Article 1466 of the FCPC, emphasising that the proceedings before the court are not a second chance to rewrite submissions and that parties must not advance novel grounds before the court that have not been raised before with the Tribunal. The rationale of the courts is clear: they are seeking to protect the integrity of arbitral proceedings by preventing parties from reserving arguments that have not been made in the underlying proceedings for deployment in potential annulment proceedings that may follow. Set-aside proceedings are not an opportunity for a party to re-plead, and parties are constrained to relying on arguments they have already developed before the tribunal.
Insistence Upon Requirements for Staying Enforcement of Arbitral Awards
In a 2025 appeal case, No. 25/00231, between French company S.A.SU EOVA and Bahraini company El Sewedy Electric Power System Projects WLL, the French courts robustly emphasised the resilience of French arbitration law and its focus on ensuring system efficiency by insisting upon the legal requirements necessary to establish a case for stay of enforcement of arbitral awards in France.
The underlying 2023 award was enforced in 2024. EOVA appealed the enforcement order and filed a stay of enforcement application pending a decision on the appeal. The appeal raised issues of forgery and argued that criminal proceedings existed that were said to impact the enforcement order.
EOVA’s application to stay the proceedings was dismissed by the Paris Court of Appeal, with the court emphasising its discretionary power to assess the appropriateness of a stay of proceedings in the interests of the proper administration of justice, and noting that it would not be in the interests of the sound administration of justice to stay the proceedings pending resolution of the criminal proceedings relied upon by EOVA. Moreover, the Court found that it would be contrary to the central concepts of expeditiousness, procedural consistency and proportionality to grant such a stay in these circumstances, and ultimately upheld the case management order, denying EOVA’s request for a stay of proceedings.
Conclusion
Whilst this article provides only a brief summary of some of the most consequential French cases in international arbitration in 2025, these cases do show the French court’s desire to reinforce its reputation as a pro-arbitration, interventionist seat. When coupled with France’s commitment to modernisation and reform of its arbitral environment (which is still unfolding), France’s position as one of the world’s most popular arbitral seats will be further solidified.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Frédéric Jeannin is a partner in the Litigation team of Charles Russell Speechlys in Paris. He assists French and foreign clients in high value and complex disputes before arbitral tribunals, French courts and alternative dispute resolution bodies. He advises and assists investors in investment disputes and particularly in the enforcement of guarantees, breach of negotiations, officers’ liability and disputes between shareholders. Frédéric has extensive experience of pre-litigation and litigation in the banking area as well as liability suits against investment services providers. He also devotes a significant part of his time to liability disputes (industrial risk and contracts).
Georgia Fullarton is a dispute resolution lawyer based in Charles Russell Speechlys’ Dubai office with particular experience in complex cross-border commercial litigation and international arbitration. Georgia represents clients on a wide range of fraud, commercial, corporate and financial services disputes and regulatory issues. Recent litigation work has included a range of breach of contract claims, shareholder, directors duties, SPA and warranty disputes and corporate fraud matters. Georgia regularly advises high-net worth individuals as well as multinational corporations across a range of sectors including natural resources, energy and telecommunications.
*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.
