THE AUTHORS<\/strong>: On Monday, 23 March 2026, as part of the 2026 edition of Paris Arbitration Week, DLA Piper<\/a> France LLP hosted a conference on recent developments and practical guidance relating to annulment proceedings in France. The panel was moderated by Ms S\u00e9r\u00e9na Salem<\/strong><\/a> (Counsel at DLA Piper<\/a> France) and brought together Ms Agn\u00e8s Bizard<\/a> <\/strong>(Counsel at King & Spalding<\/a>), Prof. Maximin de Fontmichel<\/strong><\/a> (Professor at Universit\u00e9 Paris-Saclay, Arbitrator and Expert), Prof. J\u00e9r\u00e9my Jourdan-Marques<\/strong> (Professor at Universit\u00e9 Lumi\u00e8re Lyon 2) and Ms Fabienne Schaller<\/strong><\/a> (former judge at the International Commercial Chamber of the Paris Court of Appeal), and as a co-organizer, Marie Morier,<\/strong> Senior Associate at DLA Piper<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Addressing the French courts\u2019 general approach to annulment, Ms Schaller first recalled at the outset that the role of the French annulment judge is limited to a strict review of the validity of the award, within the grounds exhaustively listed under article 1520 of the French Code of civil procedure in line with the 1958 New York Convention<\/a>. Annulment proceedings do not constitute an appeal in themselves and cannot be used to rule on the merits. She emphasised that French courts adopt a pro-arbitration and deferential approach, respecting arbitral awards, subject only to compliance with procedural guarantees and international public policy. This is a posture she described as \u201ccounterintuitive\u201d for judges traditionally accustomed to ruling on the merits of disputes. She further noted that this approach remains largely stable, although some recent developments have emerged.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Prof. de Fontmichel emphasised the high level of trust placed by French courts in arbitral tribunals and their deliberate limited review of arbitral awards. He illustrated this approach with two recent examples. First, in the Green Networkdecision of 18 September 2024 (RG n\u00b021\/20140)<\/a><\/em>, the French Court of Cassation held that arbitrators may reject requests for document production without this leading to the annulment of the award, contrary to the position in neighbouring jurisdictions such as Spain. Second, the reliance on a formula for calculating surcharges or quantum, even where that formula was not itself subject to adversarial debate, does not constitute a ground for annulment under French law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Prof. Jourdan-Marques underlined the open-minded approach of the specialised chamber of the Paris Court of Appeal and its receptiveness to doctrinal criticism. Ms Schaller added that the International Chamber has sought to make its case law more predictable, in response to criticism from common law practitioners regarding the absence of binding precedent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Ms Salem then invited the panel to turn to best practices within the arbitral process, viewed through the prism of potential annulment proceedings, beginning with the topic of third parties.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Regarding the position of the annulment judge vis-\u00e0-vis third parties to the arbitration, Ms Schaller recalled the particularly favourable approach of French law to the extension of arbitration agreements to non-signatories, treating consent as the determining criterion, inferred from the parties\u2019 common intention and conduct, rather than formal requirements. She nevertheless pointed to the limits of this approach, as illustrated by the Eckes <\/a><\/em>decisions of 6 December 2022 (RG n\u00b021\/11615)<\/a> and of 28 January 2025 (RG n\u00b023\/08063), in which the Paris Court of Appeal refused the enforcement of a foreign award due to insufficiently established consent of certain parties. She also clarified that the intervention of third parties in annulment proceedings is not allowed unless expressly agreed by the parties, as illustrated by the Devas <\/a><\/em>decision of 10 September 2024 (RG n\u00b024\/00151).<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Against this background, and turning to the strategic question of whether it is advisable to involve multiple third parties in arbitration, Prof. Jourdan-Marques cautioned that, in order to avoid annulment proceedings, third parties should only be joined where there is a solid justification.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Indeed, by multiplying respondents, the claimant offers them the opportunity to challenge the award on jurisdiction and, consequently, to challenge the award as a whole through annulment proceedings. Prof. Jourdan-Marques noted that it may be strategic for co-respondents to be represented by different law firms, or even to adopt differing positions on jurisdiction, in order to preserve a potential ground for challenge regardless of the outcome of the award.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The discussion then moved to the issue of non-participation in arbitral proceedings. Ms Schaller first addressed the assessment by the judge of a party\u2019s refusal to participate in arbitral proceedings. The Champ\u2019Pom Export v. DCU Potatoes<\/a><\/em> decision of 20 February 2024 (RG n\u00b023\/01702) confirmed that non-appearance does not in itself constitute a ground for annulment based on a breach of the adversarial principle. However, a clear distinction is to be drawn between a State that was not properly notified, as in the Libya v. Siba Plast<\/a><\/em> case of 1 October 2024 (RG n\u00b021\/11112), and a State that, having voluntarily consented to arbitration through a treaty, seeks to evade the proceedings by invoking a lack of notification. In the latter case, French courts have consistently rejected such challenges. Non-participation is not a procedural shield.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Prof. de Fontmichel provided practical recommendations for arbitrators faced with a defaulting party: identifying the reason for non-appearance, multiplying means of notification, initiating investigations through a bailiff, raising jurisdiction and admissibility issues ex officio<\/em>, and ensuring that all elements are communicated to the absent party in order to respect the adversarial principle at each stage of the proceedings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Prof. Jourdan-Marques complemented this analysis by warning against the temptation to default, which deprives the respondent of any opportunity to defend the case on the merits, with no right of appeal. He further noted that, in the Central Bank of Iraq v. CARDNO ME<\/a><\/em> decision of 21 January 2025 (RG n\u00b023\/05511), the Paris Court of Appeal held that failure to participate amounts to a waiver of its right to raise objections. He also highlighted the risks associated with the absence of reservations under Article 1466 of the French Code of Civil Procedure. Ms Schaller added that, since the decision of 30 September 2025, case law has extended the scope of this provision to both arguments and grounds, making the failure to raise reservations particularly risky.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Ms Salem also questioned the panel on the practice of arbitrators asking whether the parties have any \u201creservations\u201d regarding the conduct of the proceedings, often with a view to precluding future challenges. <\/p>\n\n\n\n While Ms Bizard did not consider this practice to be unfair, Prof. Jourdan-Marques suggested that it calls for courage from counsel and may be inherently unfair when asked without any intention of drawing consequences from the answers. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Ms Bizard then addressed recent developments regarding annulment based on a violation of international public policy, particularly in relation to corruption, and why these issues should be considered from the outset of the arbitration. She recalled that the Paris Court of Appeal relies on the \u201cred flags\u201d approach. The recent decision Averda v. Gabon<\/a><\/em> of 28 October 2025 (RG n\u00b023\/16145) illustrates a shift towards greater reliance on tribunals\u2019 analysis. The court relied directly on the arbitral tribunal\u2019s detailed analysis of invoices to justify rejecting the defendant\u2019s request for full annulment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Regarding the adversarial principle, Ms Bizard recalled that, even in expedited proceedings where time constraints are more acute, it is essential that each party be given an opportunity to respond in the event of a dispute. Prof. Jourdan-Marques stressed the importance of drafting the award carefully, particularly by separating each claim in the operative part. Failing this, where the operative part is drafted as a single paragraph, the Court of Appeal may be led to order total annulment, even if only part of the award is challenged. As noted by Ms Bizard and Prof. de Fontmichel, the use of a summary operative part submitted by the parties prior to the rendering of the award also constitutes an example of good practice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Ms Schaller added that, from the perspective of the annulment judge, errors in reasoning are not, as such, grounds for annulment, provided that the tribunal has not exceeded its mandate and that the decision remains coherent. However, clarity and concision are essential to facilitate judicial review.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The conference concluded with a discussion on the ongoing French reform project. Prof. Jourdan-Marques indicated that the working group\u2019s draft decree includes, amongst other things, a provision allowing the judge to refer the parties back to the arbitral tribunal within a very broad scope (Article 82 of the draft reform project). Ms Schaller expressed strong reservation regarding this provision, viewing it as a potential infringement of the principle of arbitral autonomy. In her view, the national judge should not interfere more in the course of arbitral proceedings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The discussion highlighted that the proposed reform raises fundamental questions which will continue to fuel debate within the French and international arbitration community.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This article was originally published in PBA Bulletin on 17 April 2026, as part of a special edition curated by Paris Baby Arbitration (PBA)<\/a>, in collaboration with Jus Mundi <\/a>and Jus Connect<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Anissa Boujdag<\/strong>, Intern at the United Nations (\u201cUN\u201d)<\/strong>
Nellie Wagner<\/strong>, Master 2 Candidate in Economic Law at Sciences Po<\/strong>
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n
As part of Paris Arbitration Week 2026, Paris Baby Arbitration (PBA)<\/a><\/strong>, in collaboration with Daily Jus<\/a><\/strong> and Jus Mundi<\/a><\/strong>, brings together contributions in a special edition of PBA Bulletin<\/a>,<\/strong> sharing reflections and perspectives from across this year\u2019s events.<\/em><\/h4>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
French Courts\u2019 Approach to Annulment Proceedings<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Best Practices in Anticipation of Annulment Proceedings<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Prospects for Reform<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n