{"id":291632,"date":"2026-07-15T16:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-07-15T14:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/?p=291632"},"modified":"2026-07-15T15:33:51","modified_gmt":"2026-07-15T13:33:51","slug":"procedural-fraud-must-be-credible-paris-court-of-appeal-rejects-disclosure-request","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/2026\/07\/15\/procedural-fraud-must-be-credible-paris-court-of-appeal-rejects-disclosure-request\/","title":{"rendered":"Procedural Fraud Must Be Credible: Paris Court of Appeal Rejects Disclosure Request"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading has-text-align-center\"><a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/en-fh-holding-moscow-limited-v-ao-unicredit-bank-and-unicredit-s-p-a-judgment-of-the-court-of-appeal-of-england-and-wales-2026-ewca-civ-468-friday-17th-april-2026?su=%2Fen%2Fsearch%3Fquery%3D%5B2026%5D+EWCA+Civ+468%26lang%3Den&amp;contents%5B0%5D=en\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\"><\/a><strong><em><a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/fr-china-communications-construction-company-ltd-v-respondent-1-respondent-2-respondent-3-respondent-4-and-respondent-5-arret-de-la-cour-d-appel-de-paris-pole-5-chambre-16-23-16464-tuesday-8th-april-2025\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Paris Court of Appeal, 14 April 2026, n\u00ba 23\/16464, CCCC Ltd<\/a><\/em><\/strong><\/h2>\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>Audrey-Anne Gomis<\/strong>, Master\u2019s Graduate at the <strong>University of Paris Panth\u00e9on-Assas<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<div style=\"height:30px\" 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:10px\" aria-hidden=\"true\" class=\"wp-block-spacer\"><\/div>\n\n\n\n<div class=\"wp-block-atbs-tabs atbs-tabs-8074491d atbs-tabs-ec08974b atbs-tabs-ae459841 atbs-tabs-012e1490 atbs-tabs-c95d372c atbs-tabs-e53aa7e1 atbs-tabs-d078d18f atbs-tabs-fe8ed5c8 atbs-tabs-4b7fc855 atbs-tabs-e9190e75 atbs-tabs-cc044763 atbs-tabs-e5227453 atbs-tabs-28ee9d1e atbs-tabs-0f9baf1e atbs-tabs-089ca7bc atbs-tabs-d3e0c47d atbs-tabs-6f4e5034 atbs-tabs-edc4d811 atbs-tabs-9f79343d 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-8074491d\">\n<div style=\"height:30px\" aria-hidden=\"true\" class=\"wp-block-spacer\"><\/div>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In a <a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/fr-china-communications-construction-company-ltd-v-respondent-1-respondent-2-respondent-3-respondent-4-and-respondent-5-arret-de-la-cour-d-appel-de-paris-pole-5-chambre-16-23-16464-tuesday-8th-april-2025\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">judgment dated 14 April 2026<\/a>, the Paris Court of Appeal rejected a request for document production brought in the context of an action for annulment against an arbitral award rendered under the aegis of the <a href=\"https:\/\/jusconnect.com\/en\/d\/profile\/institution\/en-icc-international-chamber-of-commerce\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">ICC (International Chamber of Commerce)<\/a>. The court considered that the claimants did not sufficiently demonstrate the usefulness and necessity of the requested documents for the resolution of the request for annulment.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In the present case, in 2011, China Communications Construction Company Ltd (\u201c<strong>CCCC Ltd<\/strong>\u201d) agreed with Algerian nationals (&#8220;<strong>the Algerian shareholders<\/strong>&#8220;) to set up the Algerian company China Communications Construction Company (&#8220;<strong>CCCC<\/strong>&#8220;) to carry out its activity in the construction industry in accordance with Algerian legislation.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In December 2018, following disputes between Algerian shareholders and Chinese shareholders of CCCC relating to contractual breaches attributed to CCCC Ltd, the Algerian shareholders sued CCCC Ltd before the Algerian courts. On 29 November 2019, CCCC Ltd initiated arbitration proceedings against them on the basis of the arbitration clause contained in the shareholders\u2019 agreement. It invoked breaches of their obligations under the shareholders\u2019 agreement and the arbitration agreement and sought compensation for the damage as well as the termination of the agreement.&nbsp; CCCC had voluntarily intervened in the arbitration proceedings.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">On 30 August 2023, the arbitral tribunal issued its <a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/en-china-communications-construction-company-ltd-v-respondent-1-respondent-2-respondent-3-respondent-4-and-respondent-5-final-award-wednesday-30th-august-2023#decision_79417\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">final award<\/a> in which it found several contractual breaches attributable to the Algerian shareholders and ordered them to pay various sums to the benefit of CCCC Ltd. On 2 October 2023, the Algerian shareholders filed a request for annulment of the final award before the Paris Court of Appeal, citing a violation of French international public policy.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Following a first request for document production granted by order and then executed by the company CCCC Ltd, the Algerian shareholders brought before the case management judge (\u201c<em>conseiller de la mise en \u00e9tat<\/em>\u201d) a further procedural application for disclosure of documents. This request concerned the justification of the issuance and payment by CCCC Ltd of invoices drawn up by <a href=\"https:\/\/jusconnect.com\/en\/d\/profile\/firm\/white-case\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">White &amp; Case<\/a> and Ghellal &amp; Mekerba, corresponding to the costs and fees referred to in exhibits Dm-62 and Dm-63, produced during the arbitral proceedings.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In support of their claim, the claimants invoked legitimate doubt as to the authenticity of all the invoices issued and produced in Exhibits Dm-62 and Dm-63. This doubt would result from a criminal conviction of the company CCCC Ltd by the Algerian courts on 2 June 2025, for forgery and use of forgery of five invoices issued by the Algerian law firm Ghellal &amp; Mekerba included in Exhibit Dm-62 produced by the company CCCC Ltd in the context of the arbitral proceedings. The claimants also argued that this request for document production is likely to influence the outcome of the action for annulment, since exhibits Dm-62 and Dm-63 were the basis for the arbitral tribunal\u2019s awards for procedural costs in favour of CCCC Ltd. In this regard, they pointed out that case law accepts that an invoice may constitute a fraud in the judgment as long as it is not established that it is accounted for at the price actually paid. Finally, the claimants argued that the documents requested are the only ones capable of demonstrating that the orders for payment imposed on them were based on procedural fraud and that they are not covered by the attorney-client privilege.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">CCCC Ltd objected to this request for document production. On the one hand, it contended that the criminal judgment did not concern the invoices issued by the White &amp; Case law firm and that this foreign decision is not binding on the French annulment judge. On the other hand, it alleged that the question of the costs of the proceedings was the subject of an adversarial debate before the arbitral tribunal and that the probative value of the supporting documents is a matter for the latter\u2019s sovereign discretion. Finally, it invoked professional secrecy and the general and indeterminate nature of the request for document production.&nbsp;&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The court thus had to rule on the following question: is the existence of a doubt as to the veracity of certain invoices issued, on which the arbitral award ordering a party to pay has based its decision, sufficient to justify a measure of forced production of documents? The Court answered this question in the negative.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Court first recalled that, pursuant to Article 11 of the French Code of Civil Procedure, a party may request the court to compel the production of documents. This is ordered if the documents requested are sufficiently specific and have a connection with the evidence produced in the case under consideration.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Applying this principle to the present case, the court first rejected CCCC Ltd\u2019s plea alleging professional secrecy, noting that the defendant had itself produced, both during the arbitration proceedings and in the context of the action for annulment, a copy of the invoices for costs and fees issued by the law firms acting on its behalf. The court recognized, in the second place, that the documents requested by the plaintiffs were intended to establish the probative value of the invoices communicated by CCCC Ltd in the context of the arbitral proceedings in order to justify the costs of the proceedings that it had incurred.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">However, it noted that the amount and enforceability of the disputed invoices were debated in an adversarial hearing before the arbitral tribunal, that they were not disputed by the claimants and that their probative value falls within the sovereign power of the arbitrators. The court also observed that the plaintiffs remained silent on the objections of CCCC Ltd concerning the factual intervention of the law firm Ghellal &amp; Mekerba, which was not disputed by the plaintiffs during the arbitral proceedings, and on the other hand, on the common practice in international litigation according to which the invoices of a local correspondent are paid not directly by the client represented but by the law firm in charge of the centralization and the management of the dispute, which was, in this case, the firm White &amp; Case. Finally, the court underlined that the claimants merely invoked a doubt resulting from the refusal to produce the requested documents, without adducing into the proceedings any evidence likely to cast doubt on the veracity of the invoices issued by the firm White &amp; Case produced in Exhibits Dm-62 and Dm-63 during the arbitral proceedings.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The court concluded that the claimants have not demonstrated that the production of documents requested is useful and necessary for the resolution of the action for annulment which they brought against the final award and therefore dismissed all their requests for document production.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">This judgment confirms the vigilance of the French annulment judge facing allegations of procedural fraud in arbitral matters, which is illustrated, in the context of a request for document production, by the requirement of a sufficiently credible and detailed fraud.<\/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 PBA Bulletin on June 5, 2026 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\/06\/BULLETIN-86-ENG.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">read it Here<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\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>Audrey-Anne Gomis <\/strong>is a former intern at <a href=\"https:\/\/jusconnect.com\/en\/d\/profile\/firm\/aramis-law\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Aramis<\/a> and is currently sitting for the French bar exam. She holds a&nbsp;master\u2019s degree in international&nbsp;private law and international commercial law from the University of Paris Panth\u00e9on-Assas,&nbsp;completed by a&nbsp;University&nbsp;diploma in Domestic and international arbitration from the University of Montpellier. She interned at&nbsp;law firms&nbsp;specialised in commercial litigation and arbitration. Audrey-Anne&nbsp;participated&nbsp;in the 32<sup>nd<\/sup>&nbsp;edition of Willem C. Vis Moot. She is also a contributor for the Paris Baby Arbitration monthly newsletter &#8220;Bulletin&#8221;.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">*<em><em>The&nbsp;views&nbsp;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<\/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-8074491d\">\n<h1 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong><em>La fraude proc\u00e9durale doit \u00eatre cr\u00e9dible : la Cour de Paris rejette une demande de communication de pi\u00e8ces<\/em><\/strong><\/h1>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong><em><a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/fr-china-communications-construction-company-ltd-v-respondent-1-respondent-2-respondent-3-respondent-4-and-respondent-5-arret-de-la-cour-d-appel-de-paris-pole-5-chambre-16-23-16464-tuesday-8th-april-2025\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Cour d\u2019appel de Paris, 14 avril 2026, n\u00ba 23\/16464, CCCC Ltd<\/a><\/em><\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<div style=\"height:30px\" aria-hidden=\"true\" class=\"wp-block-spacer\"><\/div>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Par un <a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/fr-china-communications-construction-company-ltd-v-respondent-1-respondent-2-respondent-3-respondent-4-and-respondent-5-arret-de-la-cour-d-appel-de-paris-pole-5-chambre-16-23-16464-tuesday-8th-april-2025\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">arr\u00eat du 14 avril 2026<\/a>, la Cour d\u2019appel de Paris a rejet\u00e9 une demande de production forc\u00e9e de pi\u00e8ces form\u00e9e dans le cadre d\u2019un recours en annulation dirig\u00e9 contre une sentence arbitrale rendue sous l\u2019\u00e9gide de la <a href=\"https:\/\/jusconnect.com\/en\/d\/profile\/institution\/en-icc-international-chamber-of-commerce\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Chambre de commerce internationale<\/a> (\u00ab&nbsp;<strong>CCI<\/strong>&nbsp;\u00bb). La cour a consid\u00e9r\u00e9 que les demandeurs ne d\u00e9montraient pas suffisamment l\u2019utilit\u00e9 et la n\u00e9cessit\u00e9&nbsp;des pi\u00e8ces sollicit\u00e9es pour la solution du recours.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">En l\u2019esp\u00e8ce, en 2011, la soci\u00e9t\u00e9 China Communications Construction Company Ltd (\u00ab&nbsp;<strong>la soci\u00e9t\u00e9 CCCC Ltd<\/strong>&nbsp;\u00bb) a convenu avec des ressortissants alg\u00e9riens (\u00ab&nbsp;<strong>les actionnaires alg\u00e9riens<\/strong>&nbsp;\u00bb) de constituer la soci\u00e9t\u00e9 de droit alg\u00e9rien China Communications Construction Company (\u00ab&nbsp;<strong>la soci\u00e9t\u00e9 CCCC&nbsp;<\/strong>\u00bb) afin d\u2019exercer son activit\u00e9 dans le BTP conform\u00e9ment \u00e0 la l\u00e9gislation alg\u00e9rienne.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">En d\u00e9cembre 2018, \u00e0 la suite de diff\u00e9rends opposant les actionnaires alg\u00e9riens et les actionnaires chinois de la soci\u00e9t\u00e9 CCCC relatifs \u00e0 des manquements contractuels imput\u00e9s \u00e0 la soci\u00e9t\u00e9 CCCC Ltd, les actionnaires alg\u00e9riens ont assign\u00e9 cette derni\u00e8re devant les tribunaux alg\u00e9riens. Le 29 novembre 2019, la soci\u00e9t\u00e9 CCCC Ltd a introduit une proc\u00e9dure arbitrale \u00e0 leur encontre sur le fondement de la clause compromissoire contenue au sein du pacte d\u2019associ\u00e9s. Elle invoquait des manquements \u00e0 leurs obligations au titre du pacte d\u2019associ\u00e9s et de la convention d\u2019arbitrage et sollicitait la r\u00e9paration du pr\u00e9judice ainsi que la r\u00e9siliation du pacte. &nbsp;La soci\u00e9t\u00e9 CCCC \u00e9tait intervenue volontairement \u00e0 l\u2019instance arbitrale.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Le 30 ao\u00fbt 2023, le tribunal arbitral a rendu sa <a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/en-china-communications-construction-company-ltd-v-respondent-1-respondent-2-respondent-3-respondent-4-and-respondent-5-final-award-wednesday-30th-august-2023#decision_79417\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">sentence finale<\/a> dans laquelle il a retenu plusieurs manquements contractuels imputables aux actionnaires alg\u00e9riens et les a condamn\u00e9s au paiement de diverses sommes au profit de la soci\u00e9t\u00e9 CCCC Ltd. Le 2 octobre 2023, les actionnaires alg\u00e9riens ont form\u00e9 un recours en annulation contre la sentence finale devant la Cour d\u2019appel de Paris, invoquant une violation de l\u2019ordre public international.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">A la suite d\u2019une premi\u00e8re demande de production forc\u00e9e de pi\u00e8ces accueillie par ordonnance puis ex\u00e9cut\u00e9e par la soci\u00e9t\u00e9 CCCC Ltd, les actionnaires alg\u00e9riens ont saisi le conseiller de la mise en \u00e9tat d\u2019un nouvel incident de communication de pi\u00e8ces. Cette demande portait sur la justification de l\u2019\u00e9mission et du paiement par la soci\u00e9t\u00e9 CCCC Ltd de factures \u00e9tablies par les cabinets <a href=\"https:\/\/jusconnect.com\/en\/d\/profile\/firm\/white-case\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">White &amp; Case<\/a> et Ghellal &amp; Mekerba, correspondant aux frais et honoraires vis\u00e9s dans des pi\u00e8ces Dm-62 et Dm-63 produites durant l\u2019instance arbitrale.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Au soutien de leur demande, les demandeurs invoquent un doute l\u00e9gitime quant \u00e0 l\u2019authenticit\u00e9 de l\u2019ensemble des factures \u00e9mises et produites en pi\u00e8ces Dm-62 et Dm-63. Ce doute r\u00e9sulterait d\u2019une condamnation p\u00e9nale de la soci\u00e9t\u00e9 CCCC Ltd par les juridictions alg\u00e9riennes du 2 juin 2025, pour faux et usage de faux de cinq factures \u00e9mises par le cabinet d\u2019avocats alg\u00e9rien Ghellal &amp; Mekerba incluses dans la pi\u00e8ce Dm-62 produite par la soci\u00e9t\u00e9 CCCC Ltd dans le cadre de la proc\u00e9dure arbitrale. Les demandeurs soutiennent \u00e9galement que cette demande de production de pi\u00e8ces est de nature \u00e0 influer sur l\u2019issue du recours en annulation, d\u00e8s lors que les pi\u00e8ces Dm-62 et Dm-63 ont fond\u00e9 les condamnations prononc\u00e9es par le tribunal arbitral au titre des co\u00fbts de proc\u00e9dure au profit de la soci\u00e9t\u00e9 CCCC Ltd. Ils rappellent \u00e0 cet \u00e9gard que la jurisprudence admet qu\u2019une facture puisse caract\u00e9riser une escroquerie au jugement tant que sa comptabilisation au prix r\u00e9ellement acquitt\u00e9 n\u2019est pas \u00e9tablie. Enfin, les demandeurs font valoir que les pi\u00e8ces sollicit\u00e9es sont les seules susceptibles de d\u00e9montrer que les condamnations \u00e0 paiement prononc\u00e9es \u00e0 leur encontre reposaient sur une fraude proc\u00e9durale et qu\u2019elles ne sont pas couvertes par le secret professionnel liant l\u2019avocat et son client.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">La soci\u00e9t\u00e9 CCCC Ltd s\u2019oppose \u00e0 cette demande de production de pi\u00e8ces. Elle soutient, d\u2019une part, que le jugement p\u00e9nal ne concerne pas les factures \u00e9mises par le cabinet White &amp; Case et que cette d\u00e9cision \u00e9trang\u00e8re ne lie pas le juge fran\u00e7ais de l\u2019annulation. D\u2019autre part, elle soutient que la question des co\u00fbts de proc\u00e9dure a fait l\u2019objet d\u2019un d\u00e9bat contradictoire devant le tribunal arbitral et que la valeur probante des justificatifs rel\u00e8ve de l\u2019appr\u00e9ciation souveraine de ce dernier. Enfin, elle invoque le secret professionnel ainsi que le caract\u00e8re g\u00e9n\u00e9ral et ind\u00e9termin\u00e9 de la demande de communication de pi\u00e8ces.&nbsp;&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">La cour devait ainsi se prononcer sur la question suivante&nbsp;: l\u2019existence d\u2019un doute quant \u00e0 la v\u00e9racit\u00e9 de certaines factures \u00e9mises ayant fond\u00e9 la sentence arbitrale condamnant une partie \u00e0 paiement suffit-elle \u00e0 justifier une mesure de production forc\u00e9e de pi\u00e8ces&nbsp;? La Cour y r\u00e9pond par la n\u00e9gative.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Elle rappelle tout d\u2019abord qu\u2019en application de l\u2019article 11 du Code de proc\u00e9dure civile, une partie peut solliciter aupr\u00e8s du juge la production forc\u00e9e de pi\u00e8ces. Celle-ci est ordonn\u00e9e si les pi\u00e8ces sollicit\u00e9es sont suffisamment d\u00e9termin\u00e9es et pr\u00e9sentent un lien de rattachement avec un \u00e9l\u00e9ment de preuve de la cause examin\u00e9e.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Faisant application de ce principe au cas d\u2019esp\u00e8ce, la cour \u00e9carte, en premier lieu, le moyen de la soci\u00e9t\u00e9 CCCC Ltd tir\u00e9 du secret professionnel, en constatant que la d\u00e9fenderesse avait elle-m\u00eame produit, tant au cours de la proc\u00e9dure arbitrale que dans le cadre du recours en annulation, une copie des factures de frais et honoraires \u00e9mises par les cabinets d\u2019avocats intervenus pour son compte. La cour reconna\u00eet, en deuxi\u00e8me lieu, que les pi\u00e8ces sollicit\u00e9es par les demandeurs ont pour objet d\u2019\u00e9tablir la force probante des factures communiqu\u00e9es par la soci\u00e9t\u00e9 CCCC Ltd dans le cadre de l\u2019instance arbitrale afin de justifier des co\u00fbts de proc\u00e9dure qu\u2019elle a expos\u00e9s.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Toutefois, elle rel\u00e8ve que le montant et l\u2019exigibilit\u00e9 des factures litigieuses ont \u00e9t\u00e9 d\u00e9battus de mani\u00e8re contradictoire devant le tribunal arbitral, qu\u2019ils n\u2019ont pas \u00e9t\u00e9 contest\u00e9s par les demandeurs et que leur valeur probatoire rel\u00e8ve du pouvoir souverain des arbitres. La cour observe \u00e9galement que les demandeurs demeuraient silencieux sur les objections de la soci\u00e9t\u00e9 CCCC Ltd concernant, d\u2019une part, l\u2019intervention factuelle, et non contest\u00e9e par les demandeurs durant l\u2019instance arbitrale, du cabinet d\u2019avocats Ghellal &amp; Mekerba et, d\u2019autre part, sur la pratique courante en contentieux international selon laquelle les factures d\u2019un correspondant local sont r\u00e9gl\u00e9es non pas directement par le client repr\u00e9sent\u00e9 mais par le cabinet d\u2019avocat en charge de centraliser la gestion du litige, en l\u2019esp\u00e8ce le cabinet White &amp; Case. Enfin, la cour souligne que les demandeurs se bornaient \u00e0 invoquer un doute r\u00e9sultant du refus de produire les pi\u00e8ces demand\u00e9es, sans verser aux d\u00e9bats d\u2019\u00e9l\u00e9ments de nature \u00e0 remettre en doute la v\u00e9racit\u00e9 des factures \u00e9mises par le cabinet White &amp; Case produites au sein des pi\u00e8ces Dm-62 et Dm-63 durant l\u2019instance arbitrale.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">La Cour en conclut que les demandeurs ne d\u00e9montrent pas que la production de pi\u00e8ces sollicit\u00e9es est utile et n\u00e9cessaire \u00e0 la solution du recours en annulation qu\u2019ils ont form\u00e9 \u00e0 l\u2019encontre de la sentence finale et rejette par cons\u00e9quent l\u2019int\u00e9gralit\u00e9 de leurs demandes de production de pi\u00e8ces.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Cet arr\u00eat confirme la vigilance du juge fran\u00e7ais de l\u2019annulation face aux all\u00e9gations de fraude proc\u00e9durale en mati\u00e8re arbitrale, s\u2019illustrant, dans le cadre d\u2019une demande de production de pi\u00e8ces, par l\u2019exigence d\u2019une fraude suffisamment cr\u00e9dible et circonstanci\u00e9e et que l\u2019ex\u00e9cution judiciaire d\u2019une s\u00fbret\u00e9 peut \u00eatre poursuivie malgr\u00e9 l\u2019existence d\u2019une convention d\u2019arbitrage connexe. L\u2019arr\u00eat souligne en outre l\u2019importance de la qualification du litige dans le cadre des demandes d\u2019<em>anti-suit injunction<\/em> et refl\u00e8te une r\u00e9ticence persistante \u00e0 intervenir dans des proc\u00e9dures \u00e9trang\u00e8res d\u2019ex\u00e9cution lorsque des consid\u00e9rations de courtoisie internationale rev\u00eatent une importance particuli\u00e8re.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<div style=\"height:10px\" aria-hidden=\"true\" class=\"wp-block-spacer\"><\/div>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">&nbsp;<\/p>\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 l<\/em><\/em>e bulletin PBA<em><em> le vendredi 5 juin, 2026, avec le soutien de Paris Baby Arbitration, Jus Mundi &amp; Jus Connect.<\/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=\"https:\/\/pbarbitration.fr\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/BULLETIN-86-FR.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">lire Ici<\/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>Audrey-Anne Gomis <\/strong>is a former intern at <a href=\"https:\/\/jusconnect.com\/en\/d\/profile\/firm\/aramis-law\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Aramis<\/a> and is currently sitting for the French bar exam. She holds a&nbsp;master\u2019s degree in international&nbsp;private law and international commercial law from the University of Paris Panth\u00e9on-Assas,&nbsp;completed by a&nbsp;University&nbsp;diploma in Domestic and international arbitration from the University of Montpellier. She interned at&nbsp;law firms&nbsp;specialised in commercial litigation and arbitration. Audrey-Anne&nbsp;participated&nbsp;in the 32<sup>nd<\/sup>&nbsp;edition of Willem C. Vis Moot. She is also a contributor for the Paris Baby Arbitration monthly newsletter &#8220;Bulletin&#8221;. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">*<em><em>Les points de vue et les opinions exprim\u00e9s par les auteurs sont les leurs et ne refl\u00e8tent pas n\u00e9cessairement ceux de leurs organisations, de leurs employeurs ou de Daily Jus, Jus Mundi ou Jus Connect.<\/em><\/em><\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Paris Court of Appeal rejects document production request in ICC award annulment, affirming strict evidentiary standards for procedural fraud in arbitration.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":291643,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jnews-multi-image_gallery":[],"jnews_single_post":{"format":"standard","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_featured":"1","show_post_meta":"1","show_post_date":"1","post_date_format":"default","post_date_format_custom":"Y\/m\/d","show_post_reading_time":"0","post_reading_time_wpm":"300","post_calculate_word_method":"str_word_count","show_zoom_button":"0","zoom_button_out_step":"2","zoom_button_in_step":"3","show_comment_section":"1","number_popup_post":"1","show_post_related":"0","show_inline_post_related":"0"}],"image_override":[{"single_post_thumbnail_size":"crop-500","single_post_gallery_size":"crop-500"}],"trending_post_position":"meta","trending_post_label":"Trending","sponsored_post_label":"Sponsored by","disable_ad":"0"},"jnews_primary_category":{"id":"179"},"jnews_social_meta":{"fb_description":"Paris Court of Appeal rejects document production request in ICC award annulment, affirming strict evidentiary standards for procedural fraud in arbitration.","twitter_description":"Paris Court of Appeal rejects document production request in ICC award annulment, affirming strict evidentiary standards for procedural fraud in arbitration.","twitter_title":"Procedural Fraud Must Be Credible: Paris Court of Appeal Rejects Disclosure Request","fb_title":"Procedural Fraud Must Be Credible: Paris Court of Appeal Rejects Disclosure Request","fb_image":"291647","twitter_image":"291647"},"jnews_review":[],"enable_review":"","type":"","name":"","summary":"","brand":"","sku":"","good":[],"bad":[],"score_override":"","override_value":"","rating":[],"price":[],"jnews_override_counter":{"view_counter_number":"0","share_counter_number":"0","like_counter_number":"0","dislike_counter_number":"0"},"footnotes":""},"categories":[205,209,207,196,167,179,195,188,276,161,247],"tags":[],"coauthors":[],"class_list":["post-291632","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-arbitration","category-arbitration-aftermath-post-award","category-commercial-arbitration","category-construction","category-europe","category-france","category-industry","category-legal-insights","category-paris-baby-arbitration-pba","category-world","category-worldwide-perspectives"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/291632","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=291632"}],"version-history":[{"count":13,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/291632\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":291653,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/291632\/revisions\/291653"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/291643"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=291632"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=291632"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=291632"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=291632"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}