{"id":288893,"date":"2026-01-14T16:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-01-14T15:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/?p=288893"},"modified":"2026-01-27T15:49:55","modified_gmt":"2026-01-27T14:49:55","slug":"paris-court-of-appeal-dismisses-arbitrator-independence-claims-in-post-crimea-oschadbank-award","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/2026\/01\/14\/paris-court-of-appeal-dismisses-arbitrator-independence-claims-in-post-crimea-oschadbank-award\/","title":{"rendered":"Paris Court of Appeal Dismisses Arbitrator Independence Claims in Post-Crimea Oschadbank Award"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

International Arbitration Newsletter <\/strong>
Second Semester 2025 <\/strong><\/h1>\n\n\n\n

Paris Court of Appeal, 1 July 2025, Oschadbank<\/em>, no. 24\/05336<\/a><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n

THE AUTHOR<\/strong>:
Eglantine Canale Jamet<\/a><\/strong>, Associate at Sygna Partners<\/a><\/strong>
<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n
\n

As a leading Paris-based firm in international law and dispute resolution, <\/em>Sygna Partners<\/a><\/em><\/strong> brings its legal insight to <\/em>Daily Jus<\/em><\/strong>. Through this collaboration<\/a>, we feature select articles from Sygna\u2019s biannual International Arbitration Newsletter, offering sharp analysis of key French court decisions and their broader relevance to the global arbitration community.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Subject Matter<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n

Article 1520(1) FCCP \u2013 Competence ratione temporis of the tribunal<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The temporal jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal must be assessed solely with regard to the date on which the dispute arose, which in this case was after the BIT entered into force.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

\n

Article 1520(2) FCCP \u2013 Independence and impartiality of the arbitrator<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Participation by an arbitrator in an amicus curiae<\/em> brief, years after a final award and unrelated to the dispute, does not establish lack of independence nor lack of impartiality. Temporal distance and absence of linkage to the dispute prevent such conduct from constituting a reasonable doubt.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Summary<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The Oschadbank<\/em> saga arises from the post-2014 investment disputes following Russia\u2019s annexation of Crimea. Oschadbank, a Ukrainian State-owned bank, alleged that assets and investments it held in Crimea were expropriated or otherwise rendered unusable following Russia\u2019s taking of control. On that basis, Oschadbank initiated investor-State arbitration in 2016, relying on the Russia-Ukraine BIT (1998)<\/a> and seated the proceedings in Paris under the auspices of the PCA (Permanent Court of Arbitration)<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

By a Final Award dated 26 November 2018<\/a>, the arbitral tribunal upheld its jurisdiction and found Russia in breach of the BIT, including by way of an unlawful expropriation of protected investments in Crimea. It ordered Russia to pay over one billion dollars to Oschadbank. Russia then pursued multiple procedural avenues, including an annulment proceeding against the award, and revision proceedings before the arbitral tribunal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This \u201crevision\u201d track later generated its own satellite litigation in Paris: the tribunal issued a decision on 11 December 2023<\/a> dismissing Russia\u2019s revision request. Russia then filed a further annulment attempt directed at that 2023 decision, prompting an incident on whether that act was an award, a sentence<\/em> susceptible to annulment. In an Order 24\/05331 of 14 January 2025<\/a>, the Paris Court of Appeal treated the 11 December 2023 act as a true arbitral award for these purposes and declared Russia\u2019s annulment action admissible at that procedural stage. This proceeding is still pending.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the main annulment proceedings against the 2018 award, the Paris Court of Appeal initially sided with Russia. In a Judgment 19\/04161 dated 30 March 2021<\/a>, it set aside the award for lack of jurisdiction, reasoning that the BIT\u2019s temporal application clause (from a certain date) operated as a jurisdictional temporal condition that was not satisfied on the facts (the investment predated the date of entry into application of the Treaty).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On 7 December 2022, in a Judgment, 21-15.390<\/a>, the Cour de cassation<\/em> quashed the Court of Appeal\u2019s approach to the temporal issue, considering that for purposes of jurisdictional control under Article 1520(1) FCCP, the annulment judge must focus on the treaty\u2019s arbitration offer rather than transforming a broader treaty \u201capplication\u201d clause into an additional condition of consent to arbitrate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The case was therefore remanded to the Paris Court of Appeal, which announced that the matter would be heard in formation solennelle<\/em>, a five-judge bench presided over by the First President of the Court of Appeal, as part of a broader effort to revive solemn sittings for especially sensitive or complex matters, particularly after cassation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

By judgment of 24 June 2025, publicly communicated by press release dated 1 July 2025<\/a>, the Paris Court of Appeal dismissed Russia\u2019s set-aside application, thereby maintaining the award\u2019s effectiveness in France.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Following the Cour de cassation<\/em>\u2019s guidance, the Court held that the arbitration offer had to be assessed \u201cwithin the sole limits\u201d of the treaty provision containing the offer (as informed by the treaty definitions of \u201cinvestor\u201d and \u201cinvestment\u201d). It concluded that the arbitral tribunal did have jurisdiction, and rejected Russia\u2019s remaining grounds, including alleged violation of international public policy, alleged failure by the tribunal to comply with its mandate, and alleged reasonable doubt as to the independence and impartiality of one arbitrator.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Analysis<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Reading of the Treaty Offer: A Matter of Consent<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

The Court of Appeal aligns itself with the Cour de cassation<\/em>\u2019s finding that the annulment judge must identify consent to arbitrate by reading the BIT\u2019s arbitration offer as it is actually formulated, together with the treaty\u2019s definitional provisions on \u201cinvestor\u201d and \u201cinvestment\u201d, rather than treating other treaty clauses as jurisdictional \u201cadd-ons\u201d. As such, the arbitration offer must be assessed \u201cwithin the sole limits\u201d of the treaty provision containing that offer, as clarified by the treaty definitions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That framing matters beyond ratione temporis<\/em>, as it rejects Russia\u2019s three-pronged jurisdictional objection (ratione temporis, ratione loci, ratione materiae<\/em>) without converting annulment into a merits-like inquiry into Crimea\u2019s contested status or the historical formation of the investment. The Court appears to be refusing to let a sovereignty dispute operate as a carve-out from the BIT where the relevant assets were in territory under Russian control following the 2014 annexation, and as treating the protection of investments as not dependent on their original creation date in the way Russia argued.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Independence and Impartiality<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

One of the challenges in this case also targeted a co-arbitrator\u2019s later attempt to participate as amicus curiae<\/em> in US appellate proceedings in a different dispute where Russia was a respondent. The Court answers with a two-step analysis, first on the independence vis-\u00e0-vis<\/em> the investor, and second on the impartiality vis-\u00e0-vis<\/em> Russia, using definitions it has been stabilising in recent case law.  Independence is assessed objectively through \u201cprecise and verifiable\u201d external facts capable of affecting an arbitrator\u2019s freedom of judgment. On the other hand, impartiality is about the absence of bias or preconceptions, potentially influenced by multiple factors, including nationality and legal environment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court considered both timing and relatedness, noting that the amicus<\/em> initiative was both unrelated to the subject-matter of the arbitration, and occurring more than five years after the 2018 award. As such, it was not probative of the arbitrator\u2019s state of mind during the relevant adjudicatory period. The same fact-pattern could look different if the arbitral tribunal were, at the time, still actively seized of post-award revision proceedings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n

A Pragmatic Mission Review<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Russia argued that the tribunal could not have complied with its mandate because it devoted only approximately 825 hours of work to a record said to contain roughly 9 500 pages. The Court\u2019s response is clear: the annulment judge does not control how much time arbitrators spend examining the file, and the CPC\u2019s diligence expectations do not create an enforceable \u201chours worked\u201d standard.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court also considered the UNCITRAL Code of Conduct for arbitrators in investment disputes and used it under its proper normative level, meaning a recommended guidance, not a text defining the tribunal\u2019s mission. The decision thus reinforces the principle under which no review of the reasoning\u2019s pertinence, no backdoor merits control (See Paris Court of Appeal, 16 May 2023, no. 21\/21189, Imagine<\/em><\/a>), while pragmatically and logically adding that time sheets are not an annulment ground.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Procedural Fraud Under International Public Policy<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

On international public policy, the Court reiterates the Belokon<\/em>-style approach (See Sygna\u2019s Arbitration Newsletter, First Semester 2022, pp. 18-19): review is directed at whether enforcement would characteristically violate the values and principles of the French international legal order, not whether the tribunal\u2019s reasoning was correct.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Applied to procedural fraud, the Court adopts two conditions: it is not enough to allege hidden documents (or forged evidence, false testimony, etc.); one must also show that the fraud materially influenced the outcome by way of \u201csurprise\u201d. In Oschadbank<\/em>, even assuming concealment about the investment\u2019s dating, the Court concludes there was no \u201csurprise\u201d because the tribunal had treated the issue as non-determinative given its understanding that the BIT\u2019s definition of investment did not impose a temporal obligation of the sort Russia alleged.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Crimea Cases and Non-Participation<\/strong><\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Finally, Oschadbank<\/em> suggests that, at least in Paris annulment review, arguments about \u201cterritory\u201d in the face of contested sovereignty, reciprocity, and the \u201cforeign\u201d character of investments will be processed through a consent-focused lens, and that strategic non-participation carries predictable costs when the record and the tribunal\u2019s framing of issues are later attacked in set-aside proceedings.
<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n

ABOUT THE AUTHOR<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Eglantine Canale Jamet<\/a><\/strong><\/strong> joined Sygna Partners<\/a><\/strong><\/strong>‘ International Litigation and Arbitration Department in 2022 as an Associate. She holds a Master\u2019s in Public International Law (Paris Nanterre) and an Advanced LL.M. in International Criminal Law (Leiden). She has gained experience with international courts (ICC and ICJ) as well as in the Legal Affairs Division of France\u2019s Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Her practice focuses on immunities and international disputes, with a particular interest in evidence, open-source investigations, and procedural issues.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

*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.<\/em><\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Court confirms that jurisdiction ratione temporis must be assessed solely by reference to the treaty\u2019s arbitration offer, not broader treaty application clauses.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":288894,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jnews-multi-image_gallery":[],"jnews_single_post":{"subtitle":"","format":"standard","video":"","gallery":"","source_name":"","source_url":"","via_name":"","via_url":"","override_template":"0","override":[{"template":"custom","single_blog_custom":"274736","parallax":"1","fullscreen":"1","layout":"right-sidebar","sidebar":"author","second_sidebar":"default-sidebar","sticky_sidebar":"1","share_position":"hide","share_float_style":"share-monocrhome","show_share_counter":"0","show_view_counter":"0","show_featured":"1","show_post_meta":"1","show_post_author":"0","show_post_author_image":"0","show_post_date":"1","post_date_format":"default","post_date_format_custom":"Y\/m\/d","show_post_category":"0","show_post_reading_time":"0","post_reading_time_wpm":"300","show_zoom_button":"0","zoom_button_out_step":"2","zoom_button_in_step":"3","show_post_tag":"0","show_prev_next_post":"0","show_popup_post":"0","number_popup_post":"1","show_author_box":"0","show_post_related":"0","show_inline_post_related":"0"}],"override_image_size":"0","image_override":[{"single_post_thumbnail_size":"crop-500","single_post_gallery_size":"crop-500"}],"trending_post":"0","trending_post_position":"meta","trending_post_label":"Trending","sponsored_post":"0","sponsored_post_label":"Sponsored by","sponsored_post_name":"","sponsored_post_url":"","sponsored_post_logo_enable":"0","sponsored_post_logo":"","sponsored_post_desc":"","disable_ad":"0"},"jnews_primary_category":{"id":"179","hide":""},"jnews_social_meta":{"fb_title":"Paris Court of Appeal Dismisses Arbitrator Independence Claims in Post-Crimea Oschadbank Award","fb_description":"The Court confirms that jurisdiction ratione temporis must be assessed solely by reference to the treaty\u2019s arbitration offer, not broader treaty application clauses.","fb_image":"288895","twitter_title":"Paris Court of Appeal Dismisses Arbitrator Independence Claims in Post-Crimea Oschadbank Award","twitter_description":"The Court confirms that jurisdiction ratione temporis must be assessed solely by reference to the treaty\u2019s arbitration offer, not broader treaty application clauses.","twitter_image":"288895"},"jnews_review":[],"enable_review":"0","type":"percentage","name":"","summary":"","brand":"","sku":"","good":[{"good_text":""}],"bad":[{"bad_text":""}],"score_override":"0","override_value":"","rating":[{"rating_text":"","rating_number":"10"}],"price":[{"shop":"","price":"","link":"","icon":""}],"jnews_override_counter":{"override_view_counter":"0","view_counter_number":"0","override_share_counter":"0","share_counter_number":"0","override_like_counter":"0","like_counter_number":"0","override_dislike_counter":"0","dislike_counter_number":"0"},"footnotes":""},"categories":[205,167,179,208,188,215,282,161,247],"tags":[],"coauthors":[],"class_list":["post-288893","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-arbitration","category-europe","category-france","category-investor-state-arbitration","category-legal-insights","category-russia","category-sygna-partners","category-world","category-worldwide-perspectives"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/288893","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=288893"}],"version-history":[{"count":14,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/288893\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":289004,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/288893\/revisions\/289004"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/288894"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=288893"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=288893"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=288893"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=288893"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}