{"id":290271,"date":"2026-05-06T16:00:15","date_gmt":"2026-05-06T14:00:15","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/?p=290271"},"modified":"2026-05-20T11:57:42","modified_gmt":"2026-05-20T09:57:42","slug":"paris-court-of-appeal-preserves-contractual-autonomy-against-state-aid-claims-in-omv-v-romania","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/2026\/05\/06\/paris-court-of-appeal-preserves-contractual-autonomy-against-state-aid-claims-in-omv-v-romania\/","title":{"rendered":"Paris Court of Appeal Preserves Contractual Autonomy Against State Aid Claims in OMV v Romania"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<h1 class=\"wp-block-heading has-text-align-center\"><strong>Paris Court of Appeal, 17 February 2026, n\u00ba 22\/17161,&nbsp;Roumanie<\/strong><\/h1>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>THE AUTHOR:<\/strong><br><strong>Raluca Szabo<\/strong>, International Dispute Resolution Lawyer<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<div style=\"height:10px\" aria-hidden=\"true\" class=\"wp-block-spacer\"><\/div>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"has-text-align-center wp-block-paragraph\"><em><a href=\"https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/company\/paris-baby-arbitration\/posts\/?feedView=all\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">Paris Baby Arbitration (&#8220;PBA&#8221;)<\/a> is building a strong community of future arbitration professionals linked to Paris and beyond. Partnering with\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Daily Jus<\/a>, PBA shares sharp, bilingual analyses and fresh perspectives on the developments shaping the arbitration field, making it more accessible to students and young practitioners worldwide.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<div style=\"height:30px\" aria-hidden=\"true\" class=\"wp-block-spacer\"><\/div>\n\n\n\n<div class=\"wp-block-atbs-tabs atbs-tabs-83f947df atbs-tabs-cd12c8fe atbs-tabs-5a5dd573 atbs-tabs-73bef137 atbs-tabs-77277d12 atbs-tabs-8b538d02 atbs-tabs-f4729533 atbs-tabs-add76758 atbs-tabs-6a2442a5 atbs-tabs-94d4083a atbs-tabs-ba3f7160 atbs-tabs-a41fdae9 atbs-tabs-adcf0cac atbs-tabs-a2b613e2 atbs-tabs-9ec325d9 atbs-tabs-f063b965 atbs-tabs-3beb0a9c atbs-tabs-b3550bfd atbs-tabs-e29c0043 atbs-tabs-3388e41b atbs-tabs-eacf5739 atbs-tabs-1640bf1d atbs-tabs-f4af3a56 atbs-tabs-873c354e atbs-tabs-83bd85a4 atbs-tabs-62375cc4 atbs-tabs-5956dcf8\"><div class=\"tabs-container\"><div class=\"tabs-nav\"><ul class=\"tabs-titles\"><li class=\"tab-title icon_left\" data-title-tab-id=\"1\" role=\"button\"><span class=\"tab-title-text\">English<\/span><\/li><li class=\"tab-title icon_left\" data-title-tab-id=\"2\" role=\"button\"><span class=\"tab-title-text\">French<\/span><\/li><\/ul><\/div><div class=\"tabs-content\">\n<div class=\"wp-block-atbs-tab\"><div class=\"single-tab\" data-tab-id=\"1\" data-tab-parent-id=\"atbs-tabs-83f947df\">\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In a return to the so-called &#8220;<em>Micula<\/em>&#8221; saga opposing the world of international arbitration and the case law of the European Union Court of Justice on State aid, the Paris Court of Appeal rendered a judgment on 17 February 2026 dismissing an application to set aside an arbitral award that had ordered Romania to compensate an Austrian company. The Court held that the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award issued in commercial arbitration proceedings does not constitute a violation of international public policy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In 2004, the Austrian company OMV Aktiengesellschaft (hereinafter the &#8220;<strong>Respondent<\/strong>&#8220;) concluded a privatisation agreement with the Romanian Ministry of Economy and Commerce for the acquisition by the Respondent of 51% of the share capital (hereinafter the &#8220;<strong>Privatisation Agreement<\/strong>&#8220;) of the former Romanian state-owned company National Petroleum Company Petrom SA (hereinafter &#8220;<strong>Petrom<\/strong>&#8220;). The Privatisation Agreement provided for a guarantee mechanism whereby Romania undertook to indemnify environmental losses and abandonment costs arising from pollution historically caused by Petrom prior to its acquisition by the Respondent. In the arbitration proceedings conducted under the Rules of the&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/jusconnect.com\/en\/d\/profile\/institution\/en-icc-international-chamber-of-commerce\">International Chamber of Commerce<\/a>, the arbitral tribunal ordered the Romanian Ministry of Environment, Waters and Forests, claimant in the annulment proceedings before the Court (hereinafter the &#8220;<strong>Claimant<\/strong>&#8220;), to pay Petrom the sums provided for under the indemnification mechanism stipulated in the Privatisation Agreement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Taking the view that the award and the condemnations issued against the Romanian State were constitutive of illegal State aid within the meaning of Article 107 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (hereinafter &#8220;<strong>TFEU<\/strong>&#8220;) and the case law of the European Court of Justice of the&nbsp; (hereinafter &#8220;<strong>ECJ<\/strong>&#8220;), the Claimant brought an application to set aside the award before the Paris Court of Appeal on grounds of violation of international public policy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Respondent contested the characterisation of illegal State aid by relying on the most recent case law of the ECJ in this area, as well as on a decision of the Romanian Competition Authority (<em>Consiliul Concuren\u021bei<\/em>) which, consulted prior to the conclusion of the Privatisation Agreement, had found that no State aid was present.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The proceedings before the Court of Appeal also gave rise to the intervention of the European Commission as&nbsp;<em>amicus curiae<\/em>, for the purpose of assisting the Court in interpreting and applying the European legal framework on State aid. In that context, the Commission concluded that the measures at issue did not qualify as State aid.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The legal question before the Court was whether an arbitral award may constitute prohibited State aid within the meaning of European law and whether, by concluding the Privatisation Agreement, Romania had granted the Respondent illegal State aid to which the arbitral award would have given effect.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Court of Appeal dismissed the application to set aside the award, on the grounds that the arbitral award did not constitute illegal State aid in itself and that the Claimant had failed to demonstrate that the measure adopted by the Romanian State, namely, the conclusion of the Privatisation Agreement to which the arbitral award gave effect constituted illegal State aid within the meaning of Article 107 TFEU.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">First of all, the Court recalled the concept of international public policy, understood as the body of fundamental values and principles of the French legal order from which no derogation may be permitted, even in an international context, and clarified that its review is limited to cases in which the enforcement of the measures taken by the arbitral tribunal would manifestly violate those principles and values.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Court then observed that the prohibition of State aid which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods on the internal market, as set out in Article 107 TFEU, forms part of French international public policy, and that it was therefore for the Claimant to demonstrate how the recognition or enforcement of the award would give effect to prohibited State aid in the present case.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Regarding the first part of the legal question, the Court dismissed the ECJ case law relied upon by the Claimant in support of the argument that an arbitral award imposing pecuniary obligations on a State for the benefit of a private operator may constitute State aid. The Court found that this case law was not relevant in the present case, since the notion of State aid developed in the judgment&nbsp;<em>Commission v. European Food e.a.<\/em>&nbsp;(C-638\/19) concerned investment arbitration only.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Aligning itself with the conclusions of the European Commission, the Court clarified that the notion of State aid developed in the context of investment arbitration cannot be transposed to so-called &#8220;conventional&#8221; commercial arbitration. In particular, arbitral proceedings based on a State&#8217;s consent expressed in a specific agreement reflecting the autonomy of the parties, which does not seek to remove from the jurisdiction of national courts and the ECJ disputes liable to concern the interpretation and application of EU law, do not in principle constitute illegal State aid.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Relying on the ECJ judgment of 22 February 2024 in joined cases&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/en-mytilinaios-ae-v-dimosia-epicheirisi-ilektrismou-ae-dei-judgment-of-the-general-court-of-the-court-of-justice-of-the-european-union-fourth-chamber-c-701-21-p-and-c-739-21-p-thursday-22nd-february-2024\">C-701\/21 and C-739\/21 (<em>Mytilinaios\/DEI<\/em>)<\/a>, the Court recalled that a Member State&#8217;s decision to conclude an arbitration agreement with a private operator does not confer upon the latter a selective advantage within the meaning of State aid rules, unless it is demonstrated that the arbitration clause and the conduct of the arbitral proceedings form part of a scheme put in place with the specific aim of circumventing State aid rules. Since the Claimant had not argued that this was the case, the Court concluded that the arbitral award did not, as such, constitute illegal State aid within the meaning of Article 107 TFEU.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Regarding the second part of the question, whether the conclusion of the Privatisation Agreement constituted State aid to which the award had given effect, it was necessary to satisfy the four cumulative criteria for the characterisation of State aid within the meaning of Article 107 TFEU namely, that the Privatisation Agreement constituted a measure imputable to the State, liable to affect trade between Member States and to distort or threaten to distort competition, and that it could be characterised as a selective advantage conferred upon the Respondent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Court found that the Claimant, who bore the burden of proof, had failed to substantiate its allegations, having produced no economic analysis of the relevant market or of the Respondent&#8217;s market position and economic activity. By contrast, the Court relied on the decision of the Romanian Competition Authority (<em>Consiliul Concuren\u021bei<\/em>) produced by the Respondent, which, following a thorough analysis of the Respondent&#8217;s market position and the various stages of Petrom&#8217;s privatisation process, including a review of the indemnification mechanism for environmental losses and abandonment costs contained in the Privatisation Agreement, had concluded that no State aid was present.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Claimant having failed to adduce sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the conclusion of the Privatisation Agreement satisfied the constitutive criteria of illegal State aid, the Court could only conclude that no State aid was established.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In the absence of any demonstration of prohibited State aid within the meaning of the European legal framework, the Court therefore dismissed the sole ground of annulment based on the incompatibility of the award with international public policy and, consequently, the application to set aside the award.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">This decision reflects a rigorous application of recent developments in the ECJ&#8217;s case law on State aid. In doing so, the Paris Court of Appeal adopts an open approach, demonstrating that arbitration is not categorically closed as a means of resolving disputes between a Member State and economic operators from another Member State. The cornerstone of the reasoning lies in the nature and scope of the State&#8217;s consent to arbitration: where that consent is not generalised and does not specifically seek to circumvent State aid rules, the resulting award does not infringe international public policy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">This welcome distinction preserves a space for contractual autonomy for Member States wishing to resort to arbitration in the context of economic transactions concluded with private actors in international commerce, without thereby exposing themselves to the systematic recharacterisation of their commitments as violations of EU State aid rules.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<div style=\"height:10px\" aria-hidden=\"true\" class=\"wp-block-spacer\"><\/div>\n\n\n\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\">\n<p class=\"has-text-align-center wp-block-paragraph\">T<em>his article was originally published in the Biberon Newsletter on <em>Wednesday, May 6, 2026,<\/em> with thanks to Paris Baby Arbitration, Jus Mundi &amp; Jus Connect<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<div class=\"wp-block-buttons is-content-justification-center is-layout-flex wp-container-core-buttons-is-layout-fe48e5de wp-block-buttons-is-layout-flex\">\n<div class=\"wp-block-button\"><a class=\"wp-block-button__link wp-element-button\" href=\"https:\/\/pbarbitration.fr\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/BULLETIN-85-ENG.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\"><strong>Read It<\/strong> <strong>Here<\/strong><\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n<div style=\"height:30px\" aria-hidden=\"true\" class=\"wp-block-spacer\"><\/div>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>ABOUT THE AUTHOR<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Raluca Szabo<\/strong>&nbsp;has recently passed the Paris Bar exam to qualify as a French lawyer. She focuses on international arbitration and cross-border dispute resolution, grounded in a strong academic background in international and European law. Holding a French-Italian double degree from Universit\u00e9 Paris Panth\u00e9on-Assas and Universit\u00e0 degli Studi di Padova, she has gained experience in international dispute resolution, banking and financial regulation, and corporate governance\u2014fields in which she is particularly interested in exploring their intersections. Fluent in English, French, Italian, and Romanian, Raluca views international arbitration as a key instrument for promoting sustainable global economic development.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">*<em><em>The\u00a0views\u00a0and 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<\/div><\/div>\n\n\n\n<div class=\"wp-block-atbs-tab\"><div class=\"single-tab\" data-tab-id=\"2\" data-tab-parent-id=\"atbs-tabs-83f947df\">\n<h1 class=\"wp-block-heading has-text-align-center\"><strong>Cour d\u2019appel de Paris, 17 f\u00e9vrier 2026, n\u00b0 22\/17161, Roumanie<\/strong><\/h1>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Dans un retour \u00e0 la saga jurisprudentielle \u00ab&nbsp;<em>Micula<\/em>&nbsp;\u00bb opposant le monde de l&#8217;arbitrage international \u00e0 la jurisprudence de la Cour de justice de l&#8217;Union europ\u00e9enne en mati\u00e8re d&#8217;aides d&#8217;\u00c9tat, la Cour d&#8217;appel de Paris a rendu un arr\u00eat le 17 f\u00e9vrier 2026 rejetant le recours en annulation contre une sentence arbitrale qui condamnait l&#8217;\u00c9tat roumain \u00e0 indemniser une soci\u00e9t\u00e9 autrichienne. La Cour a en effet retenu que la reconnaissance et l&#8217;ex\u00e9cution de la sentence arbitrale issue d&#8217;un arbitrage commercial ne constituent pas une violation de l&#8217;ordre public international.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">En 2004, la soci\u00e9t\u00e9 de droit autrichien OMV Aktiengesellschaft (ci-apr\u00e8s la \u00ab&nbsp;<strong>D\u00e9fenderesse<\/strong>&nbsp;\u00bb) avait conclu avec le minist\u00e8re de l&#8217;\u00c9conomie et du Commerce de Roumanie un accord de privatisation portant sur l&#8217;acquisition par la D\u00e9fenderesse de 51 % du capital social (ci-apr\u00e8s l&#8217;\u00ab&nbsp;<strong>Accord de privatisation<\/strong>&nbsp;\u00bb) de l&#8217;ancienne entreprise publique roumaine National Petroleum Company Petrom SA (ci-apr\u00e8s \u00ab&nbsp;<strong>Petrom<\/strong>&nbsp;\u00bb). L&#8217;Accord de privatisation pr\u00e9voyait un m\u00e9canisme de garantie par l&#8217;\u00c9tat roumain destin\u00e9 \u00e0 indemniser les pertes environnementales et les co\u00fbts d&#8217;abandon li\u00e9s \u00e0 la pollution historiquement caus\u00e9e par Petrom ant\u00e9rieurement \u00e0 son acquisition par la D\u00e9fenderesse. Dans le cadre d&#8217;un arbitrage commercial conduit sous l&#8217;\u00e9gide du r\u00e8glement de la&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/jusconnect.com\/en\/d\/profile\/institution\/en-icc-international-chamber-of-commerce\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">Chambre de Commerce Internationale,<\/a>&nbsp;le tribunal arbitral avait condamn\u00e9 le Minist\u00e8re de l&#8217;Environnement, des Eaux et des For\u00eats de l&#8217;\u00c9tat de Roumanie, demandeur au recours en annulation devant la Cour (ci-apr\u00e8s la \u00ab&nbsp;<strong>Demanderesse<\/strong>&nbsp;\u00bb), \u00e0 verser \u00e0 Petrom les sommes pr\u00e9vues au titre du m\u00e9canisme d&#8217;indemnisation stipul\u00e9 dans l&#8217;Accord de privatisation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Estimant que la sentence et les condamnations prononc\u00e9es \u00e0 l&#8217;encontre de l&#8217;\u00c9tat roumain seraient constitutives d&#8217;une aide d&#8217;\u00c9tat ill\u00e9gale au sens de l&#8217;article 107 du Trait\u00e9 sur le fonctionnement de l&#8217;Union europ\u00e9enne (ci-apr\u00e8s le \u00ab&nbsp;<strong>TFUE<\/strong>&nbsp;\u00bb) et de la jurisprudence de la Cour de justice de l&#8217;Union europ\u00e9enne (ci-apr\u00e8s la \u00ab&nbsp;<strong>CJUE<\/strong>&nbsp;\u00bb), la Demanderesse a form\u00e9 un recours en annulation devant la Cour d&#8217;appel de Paris pour violation de l&#8217;ordre public international.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">La D\u00e9fenderesse a contest\u00e9 la qualification d&#8217;aide d&#8217;\u00c9tat ill\u00e9gale en s&#8217;appuyant sur la jurisprudence la plus r\u00e9cente de la CJUE en la mati\u00e8re, ainsi que sur la d\u00e9cision de l&#8217;autorit\u00e9&nbsp; de la concurrence roumaine (<em>Consiliul Concuren\u021bei<\/em>) qui, consult\u00e9 pr\u00e9alablement \u00e0 la conclusion de l&#8217;Accord de privatisation, avait conclu \u00e0 l&#8217;absence d&#8217;aide d&#8217;\u00c9tat.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">La proc\u00e9dure devant la Cour d&#8217;appel a \u00e9galement donn\u00e9 lieu \u00e0 l&#8217;intervention de la Commission europ\u00e9enne en qualit\u00e9 d&#8217;<em>amicus curiae<\/em>, aux fins d&#8217;\u00e9clairer la Cour sur l&#8217;interpr\u00e9tation et l&#8217;application du r\u00e9gime juridique europ\u00e9en des aides d&#8217;\u00c9tat en l&#8217;esp\u00e8ce. Dans ce contexte, la Commission a conclu dans le sens de l&#8217;absence de qualification d&#8217;aide d&#8217;\u00c9tat.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">La question juridique soumise \u00e0 la Cour \u00e9tait celle de savoir si une sentence arbitrale peut constituer une aide d&#8217;\u00c9tat prohib\u00e9e au sens du droit europ\u00e9en et si, en concluant l&#8217;Accord de privatisation, la Roumanie avait conf\u00e9r\u00e9 \u00e0 la D\u00e9fenderesse une aide d&#8217;\u00c9tat ill\u00e9gale \u00e0 laquelle la sentence arbitrale aurait donn\u00e9 effet.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">La Cour d&#8217;appel a rejet\u00e9 le recours en annulation, au motif que la sentence arbitrale ne constituait pas en tant que telle une aide d\u2019\u00c9tat ill\u00e9gale et que la Demanderesse n&#8217;avait pas apport\u00e9 la preuve que la mesure adopt\u00e9e par l&#8217;\u00c9tat roumain, \u00e0 savoir la conclusion de l&#8217;Accord de privatisation auquel la sentence arbitrale donnait effet, constituait une aide d&#8217;\u00c9tat ill\u00e9gale au sens de l&#8217;article 107 du TFUE.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Dans un premier temps, la Cour a rappel\u00e9 la conception d&#8217;ordre public international, entendu comme l&#8217;ensemble des valeurs et principes fondamentaux de l&#8217;ordre juridique fran\u00e7ais auxquels il ne saurait \u00eatre d\u00e9rog\u00e9, m\u00eame dans un contexte international, et a pr\u00e9cis\u00e9 que son contr\u00f4le se limite \u00e0 l&#8217;hypoth\u00e8se dans laquelle l&#8217;ex\u00e9cution des dispositions prises par le tribunal arbitral violerait de mani\u00e8re caract\u00e9ris\u00e9e lesdits principes et valeurs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">La Cour a ensuite relev\u00e9 que la prohibition des aides d&#8217;\u00c9tat qui faussent ou menacent de fausser la concurrence en favorisant certaines entreprises ou certaines productions sur le march\u00e9 int\u00e9rieur, telle qu&#8217;\u00e9nonc\u00e9e \u00e0 l&#8217;article 107 du TFUE, rel\u00e8ve de l&#8217;ordre public international fran\u00e7ais, et qu&#8217;il appartenait d\u00e8s lors \u00e0 la Demanderesse de d\u00e9montrer en quoi la reconnaissance ou l&#8217;ex\u00e9cution de la sentence conduirait \u00e0 donner effet \u00e0 une aide d&#8217;\u00c9tat prohib\u00e9e en l&#8217;esp\u00e8ce.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">S&#8217;agissant de la premi\u00e8re partie de la question juridique, la Cour a \u00e9cart\u00e9 la jurisprudence de la CJUE sur laquelle la Demanderesse s&#8217;\u00e9tait appuy\u00e9e pour soutenir qu&#8217;une sentence arbitrale portant des condamnations p\u00e9cuniaires contre un \u00c9tat au profit d&#8217;un op\u00e9rateur priv\u00e9 serait susceptible de constituer une aide d&#8217;\u00c9tat. La Cour a en effet relev\u00e9 que cette jurisprudence n&#8217;\u00e9tait pas pertinente en l&#8217;esp\u00e8ce, d\u00e8s lors que la notion d&#8217;aide d&#8217;\u00c9tat d\u00e9velopp\u00e9e dans l&#8217;arr\u00eat&nbsp;<em>Commission c. European Food e.a.<\/em>&nbsp;(C-638\/19) ne concerne que l&#8217;arbitrage d&#8217;investissement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Se ralliant aux conclusions de la Commission europ\u00e9enne, la Cour a pr\u00e9cis\u00e9 que la notion d&#8217;aide d&#8217;\u00c9tat d\u00e9velopp\u00e9e en mati\u00e8re d&#8217;arbitrage d&#8217;investissement n&#8217;est pas transposable \u00e0 l&#8217;arbitrage commercial dit \u00ab conventionnel \u00bb. En particulier, les proc\u00e9dures arbitrales fond\u00e9es sur le consentement de l&#8217;\u00c9tat exprim\u00e9 dans un accord ponctuel refl\u00e9tant l&#8217;autonomie des parties, ne visant pas \u00e0 soustraire de mani\u00e8re g\u00e9n\u00e9rale \u00e0 la comp\u00e9tence des juridictions \u00e9tatiques et de la CJUE les litiges susceptibles de porter sur l&#8217;interpr\u00e9tation et l&#8217;application du droit de l&#8217;Union, ne constituent pas en principe une aide d&#8217;\u00c9tat illicite.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Se fondant sur l&#8217;arr\u00eat de la CJUE du 22 f\u00e9vrier 2024 rendu dans les affaires jointes C<a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/en-mytilinaios-ae-v-dimosia-epicheirisi-ilektrismou-ae-dei-judgment-of-the-general-court-of-the-court-of-justice-of-the-european-union-fourth-chamber-c-701-21-p-and-c-739-21-p-thursday-22nd-february-2024\">-701\/21 et C-739\/21 (<em>Mytilinaios\/DEI<\/em>)<\/a>, la Cour a rappel\u00e9 que la d\u00e9cision d&#8217;un \u00c9tat membre de conclure un compromis d&#8217;arbitrage avec un op\u00e9rateur priv\u00e9 ne conf\u00e8re pas \u00e0 ce dernier un avantage s\u00e9lectif caract\u00e9risant les aides d\u2019\u00c9tat, sauf \u00e0 d\u00e9montrer que la clause compromissoire et le d\u00e9roulement de la proc\u00e9dure arbitrale s&#8217;inscrivent dans un sch\u00e9ma visant sp\u00e9cifiquement \u00e0 contourner les r\u00e8gles relatives aux aides d&#8217;\u00c9tat. Or, la Demanderesse n&#8217;ayant pas soutenu que tel \u00e9tait le cas en l&#8217;esp\u00e8ce, la Cour en a conclu que la sentence arbitrale ne constituait pas, en tant que telle, une aide d&#8217;\u00c9tat illicite au sens de l&#8217;article 107 du TFUE.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">S&#8217;agissant de la seconde partie de la question, celle de savoir si la conclusion de l&#8217;Accord de privatisation constituait une aide d&#8217;\u00c9tat \u00e0 laquelle la sentence aurait donn\u00e9 effet, il convenait de r\u00e9unir les quatre crit\u00e8res cumulatifs de qualification des aides d&#8217;\u00c9tat au sens de l&#8217;article 107 du TFUE, \u00e0 savoir que l&#8217;Accord de privatisation constituait une mesure imputable \u00e0 l&#8217;\u00c9tat, susceptible d&#8217;affecter les \u00e9changes entre \u00c9tats membres et de fausser ou menacer de fausser la concurrence, et qu&#8217;il f\u00fbt qualifiable d&#8217;avantage s\u00e9lectif au b\u00e9n\u00e9fice de la D\u00e9fenderesse.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Or, la Cour a constat\u00e9 que la Demanderesse, \u00e0 qui incombait la charge de la preuve, n&#8217;avait pas suffisamment \u00e9tay\u00e9 ses all\u00e9gations, faute d&#8217;avoir produit une analyse \u00e9conomique portant sur le march\u00e9 pertinent ainsi que sur la position et l&#8217;activit\u00e9 \u00e9conomique de la D\u00e9fenderesse. \u00c0 l&#8217;inverse, la Cour s&#8217;est r\u00e9f\u00e9r\u00e9e \u00e0 la d\u00e9cision du l&#8217;autorit\u00e9 de la concurrence roumaine (<em>Consiliul Concuren\u021bei<\/em>) produite par la D\u00e9fenderesse, laquelle, \u00e0 l&#8217;issue d&#8217;une analyse approfondie de la position sur le march\u00e9 de la D\u00e9fenderesse et des \u00e9tapes du processus de privatisation de Petrom, y compris l&#8217;\u00e9tude du m\u00e9canisme d&#8217;indemnisation pour pertes environnementales et co\u00fbts d&#8217;abandon contenu dans l&#8217;Accord de privatisation, avait conclu \u00e0 l&#8217;absence d&#8217;aide d&#8217;\u00c9tat.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">La Demanderesse n&#8217;ayant pas apport\u00e9 d&#8217;\u00e9l\u00e9ments suffisants \u00e0 d\u00e9montrer en quoi la conclusion de l&#8217;Accord de privatisation satisfaisait aux crit\u00e8res constitutifs d&#8217;une aide d&#8217;\u00c9tat ill\u00e9gale, la Cour n&#8217;a pu que conclure \u00e0 l&#8217;absence d&#8217;aide d&#8217;\u00c9tat.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">En l&#8217;absence de d\u00e9monstration d&#8217;une aide d&#8217;\u00c9tat prohib\u00e9e au sens du r\u00e9gime juridique europ\u00e9en, la Cour a donc rejet\u00e9 le moyen unique tir\u00e9 de la contrari\u00e9t\u00e9 de la sentence \u00e0 l&#8217;ordre public international et, partant, le recours en annulation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Cette d\u00e9cision est le r\u00e9sultat d&#8217;une application rigoureuse des r\u00e9cents d\u00e9veloppements de la jurisprudence de la CJUE en mati\u00e8re d\u2019aides d\u2019\u00c9tat. Ce faisant, la Cour d&#8217;appel s&#8217;inscrit dans une d\u00e9marche d&#8217;ouverture d\u00e9montrant que l&#8217;instrument arbitral n&#8217;est pas herm\u00e9tiquement ferm\u00e9 \u00e0 la r\u00e9solution des litiges opposant un \u00c9tat membre \u00e0 des acteurs \u00e9conomiques ressortissants d&#8217;un autre \u00c9tat membre. La cl\u00e9 de vo\u00fbte du raisonnement r\u00e9side dans la nature et la port\u00e9e du consentement \u00e9tatique \u00e0 l&#8217;arbitrage : d\u00e8s lors que ce consentement n&#8217;est pas g\u00e9n\u00e9ralis\u00e9 et ne vise pas sp\u00e9cifiquement \u00e0 contourner les r\u00e8gles en mati\u00e8re d&#8217;aides d&#8217;\u00c9tat, la sentence qui en est issue ne porte pas atteinte \u00e0 l&#8217;ordre public international.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Cette distinction, bienvenue, pr\u00e9serve ainsi un espace de libert\u00e9 contractuelle pour les \u00c9tats membres qui souhaitent recourir \u00e0 l&#8217;instrument arbitral dans le cadre d&#8217;op\u00e9rations \u00e9conomiques conclues avec des acteurs priv\u00e9s dans le contexte du commerce international, sans pour autant s&#8217;exposer \u00e0 la requalification syst\u00e9matique de leurs engagements en violations des r\u00e8gles d&#8217;aides d&#8217;\u00c9tat du droit europ\u00e9en.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<div style=\"height:10px\" aria-hidden=\"true\" class=\"wp-block-spacer\"><\/div>\n\n\n\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\">\n<p class=\"has-text-align-center wp-block-paragraph\"><em><em>Cet article a \u00e9t\u00e9 initialement publi\u00e9 dans la newsletter Biberon le mercredi 6 mai, 2026, avec le soutien de Paris Baby Arbitration, Jus Mundi &amp; Jus Connect, et est disponible<\/em><\/em>:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<div class=\"wp-block-buttons is-content-justification-center is-layout-flex wp-container-core-buttons-is-layout-fe48e5de wp-block-buttons-is-layout-flex\">\n<div class=\"wp-block-button\"><a class=\"wp-block-button__link wp-element-button\" href=\"http:\/\/chrome-extension:\/\/efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj\/https:\/\/pbarbitration.fr\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/BULLETIN-85-FR.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\"><strong>Lire dans le Biberon<\/strong><\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n<div style=\"height:30px\" aria-hidden=\"true\" class=\"wp-block-spacer\"><\/div>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>ABOUT THE AUTHOR<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Raluca Szabo<\/strong>&nbsp;has recently passed the Paris Bar exam to qualify as a French lawyer. She focuses on international arbitration and cross-border dispute resolution, grounded in a strong academic background in international and European law. Holding a French-Italian double degree from Universit\u00e9 Paris Panth\u00e9on-Assas and Universit\u00e0 degli Studi di Padova, she has gained experience in international dispute resolution, banking and financial regulation, and corporate governance\u2014fields in which she is particularly interested in exploring their intersections. Fluent in English, French, Italian, and Romanian, Raluca views international arbitration as a key instrument for promoting sustainable global economic development.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">*<em><em>The\u00a0views\u00a0and 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<\/div><\/div>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Paris Court of Appeal confirms that a commercial arbitration award against Romania did not constitute illegal State aid or breach international public policy.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":290273,"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 Preserves Contractual Autonomy Against State Aid Claims in OMV v Romania","fb_description":"Paris Court of Appeal confirms that a commercial arbitration award against Romania did not constitute illegal State aid or breach international public policy.","fb_image":"290272","twitter_title":"Paris Court of Appeal Preserves Contractual Autonomy Against State Aid Claims in OMV v Romania","twitter_description":"Paris Court of Appeal confirms that a commercial arbitration award against Romania did not constitute illegal State aid or breach international public policy.","twitter_image":"290272"},"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":[205,209,207,167,179,188,276,161],"tags":[],"coauthors":[],"class_list":["post-290271","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-arbitration","category-arbitration-aftermath-post-award","category-commercial-arbitration","category-europe","category-france","category-legal-insights","category-paris-baby-arbitration-pba","category-world"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/290271","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=290271"}],"version-history":[{"count":13,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/290271\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":290530,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/290271\/revisions\/290530"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/290273"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=290271"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=290271"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=290271"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=290271"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}