THE AUTHOR:
Aïda AMOR, Legal Trainee at Freshfields LLP (former in-house counsel)
Paris Arbitration Week 2026 marked its tenth anniversary with a series of conferences exploring arbitration practice in North Africa and the MENA region. This coverage focuses on three conferences led by local practitioners.
25 March 2026 – The Fundamentals of Sports Arbitration: Moroccan/MENA Perspectives
Organized by the IBA Young Lawyers’ Committee, with the support of Arb40 of the IBA Arbitration Committee and Association Franco‑Marocaine des Avocats d’Affaires (“AFMAA”), the panel, moderated by Munia El Harti Alonso, featured Iliass Segame, Barry Lysaght, Siddharth Gosain, Arno Janssens, and Fannie Bruneau.
The discussion opened with Iliass Segame outlining the framework of Morocco’s sport economy. He noted that, in 2024, the sector accounted for 1.56% of the national gross domestic product and generated approximately 11,500 direct jobs. Morocco’s investment budget for the 2030 World Cup was estimated at USD 5 billion.
At national level, disputes start within federations before escalating to arbitration. The Moroccan National Olympic Committee (“CNOM”) handles most national cases, except for certain matters, such as disciplinary and doping cases. Internationally, FIFA bodies, and ultimately the Court of Arbitration for Sport (“CAS”), exercise final authority, delivering decisions that are final and binding.
Barry Lysaght highlighted that Article 59 of the FIFA Statutes prohibits recourse to national courts, requiring disputes to be resolved exclusively through FIFA-recognized arbitration mechanisms. While this framework ensures consistency across confederations, it raises structural concerns, particularly regarding its monopoly. Questions persist regarding its independence, as arbitrators are drawn from a closed list closely linked to sports institutions. Representation of players and independent arbitrators is viewed as limited, concentrating regulatory and adjudicatory authority within the same ecosystem.
Despite this autonomy, Barry emphasized that sports arbitration must comply with fundamental procedural guarantees, including the right to a fair trial and due process, in accordance with European human rights standards. Access to justice has emerged as a key concern: although players may theoretically bring cases before the CAS, high arbitration costs often create prohibitive barriers. While pro-bono representation and FIFA advance-on-costs mechanisms may exist, they do not consistently operate effectively. As a result, lower-tier or financially vulnerable players may be effectively excluded from sports justice, reinforcing systemic inequalities.
Geopolitical considerations were also addressed, particularly the response of FIFA and the Union of European Football Associations (“UEFA”) to the invasion of Ukraine, including Russia’s suspension and measures allowing Ukrainian players and coaches to temporarily terminate their contracts and transfer freely. Barry nevertheless noted inconsistencies in the application of such measures across different geopolitical conflicts, raising concerns regarding equal treatment.
Siddharth Gosain explained that FIFA assumes jurisdiction whenever a dispute involves a club and a foreign player. The CAS may be seized either through contractual arbitration clauses or appeal procedures.
The discussion then turned to developments in the Gulf Cooperation Council (“GCC”), particularly Saudi Arabia. Siddharth explained that the Saudi Arabian Football Federation Dispute Resolution Chamber (“SAFF DRC”) handles disputes involving local parties, while the Saudi Sport Arbitration Center plays an increasingly significant role, with access open to foreign parties. The rapid professionalization of Saudi football has led to a rise in arbitration cases.
Arno Janssens differentiated between commercial arbitration, covering sponsorship, broadcasting, and supply contracts, and regulatory disputes, which account for approximately 90% of cases. Sports arbitration often functions as a first-instance adjudicative mechanism and operates within a broader institutional landscape, including the CAS, the ICC, and DIAC. Procedural variations, particularly with respect to the appointment of arbitrators and the determination of applicable law, make the choice of institution strategic.
A practical example illustrated this point: the speaker referred to a non-public arbitration over television rights for a football league recently submitted to ICC arbitration under English law, highlighting key differences with CAS arbitration, notably the latter’s closed list of arbitrators and absence of terms of reference.
Ad hoc arbitration in sports disputes remains rare, typically limited to niche cases where parties are confident in self‑managing the proceedings.
Finally, Fannie Bruneau highlighted European public policy as illustrated by the Semenya case: although the CAS found that the regulations imposed on the athlete were prima facie discriminatory, it upheld them as necessary, reasonable, and proportionate to preserve the integrity of women’s competition. This illustrates both the limited scrutiny of arbitral review and the growing exposure of sports arbitration to public law scrutiny.
The conference closed by encouraging younger practitioners’ engagement and highlighting the rise of arb-med-arb in sports arbitration.
26 March 2026 – Comparative Perspectives on the Development of Arbitration in Morocco and France
Jointly organized by Association Française de l’Arbitrage (“AFA”) and the Moroccan Arbitration Club (“MAC”), the discussion addressed recent arbitration reforms in France and Morocco, focusing on structural evolution, arbitration agreements, arbitrability, and procedural constraints. The panel included Marc Henry, Caroline Duclercq, Jalal El Ahdab, Wissam Mghazli, Aïcha Brahma, and Ghiyta Iraqi.
Marc Henry first presented the French reform project as the outcome of a structured working group, notably considering a move away from the traditional dualism between domestic and international arbitration and the potential adoption of a dedicated Arbitration Code. In contrast, Morocco implemented a major reform in 2022 through Law No. 95-17. While broadly welcomed, it revealed practical shortcomings, particularly in a system dominated by ad hoc arbitration.
Regarding dualism, debate persists on this matter: France appears increasingly open to unification, as Caroline Duclercq noted, while Morocco deliberately retains a dualist structure, as put forward by Aïcha Brahma. Marc observed that substantive differences between domestic and international arbitration regimes have considerably diminished, calling into question the continued relevance of this dichotomy, insofar as arbitration, by its very nature, constitutes a unified mechanism.
As highlighted by Ghiyta Iraqi, Moroccan law now expressly affirms the autonomy of the arbitration clause, ensuring its survival beyond the annulment of the main contract. The reform also enshrines the principles of compétence-compétence and judicial deference to arbitral tribunals. Although a written agreement is still required, the law interprets “writing” broadly to include emails, correspondence, and undisputed submissions.
As stated by Caroline, French law still reflects asymmetries: a written agreement is required in domestic arbitration but not internationally. The reform project aims to align the regimes by removing the writing requirement in domestic arbitration and introducing reliability criteria to infer consent.
Moroccan case law confirms a pro‑arbitration approach, as underscored by Jalal El Ahdab. The 2022 reform abolished the requirement of a specific signature for arbitration clauses and allows their extension to non‑signatories, an uncommon feature in the Arab world, while courts adopt a less formalistic approach.
Arbitrability was identified as a key political issue, as noted by Ghiyta. Moroccan law permits arbitration involving public entities for pecuniary disputes stemming from unilateral administrative acts, and public companies may also resort to arbitration, reflecting a pro-investment policy. However, employment disputes remain controversial due to the imbalance between parties to the dispute. Nevertheless, fiscal disputes continue to be excluded from arbitration.
Caroline responded that French law addresses similar tensions differently: arbitration clauses are unenforceable against employees, who may opt for arbitration post-dispute, while consumer arbitration is being progressively aligned since 2011. The reform project also tends to recognize arbitrability of public entities in international disputes, in line with the approach of the Cour de cassation.
Regarding the role of arbitrator, Morocco’s first official arbitrator list, introduced by Decree No. 2.23.1119 of 14 May 2024, includes about 500 arbitrators. This list was seen as both a quality safeguard and a potential source of exclusion, due to discretionary, experience‑based criteria assessed by a commission composed of non‑arbitration specialists. Although no nationality requirement is expressly specified, the commission retains wide discretion in practice.
As Wissam Mghazli stated, the Moroccan exequatur regime still presents notable inconsistencies, as the 2022 reform introduced an adversarial requirement into exequatur proceedings. To cite a few others, Article 1 of Law No. 95-17 defines the award as a decision that can also be rendered by arbitral institutions and Article 34 undermines party autonomy by allowing arbitrators to impose Arabic as the language of awards, orders and decisions even if parties had agreed on another language for the arbitration. As ultimately highlighted by Jalal, the biggest challenge remains that an action to set aside an award still suspends the provisional execution of the award.
27 March 2026 – International Arbitration in North Africa: An Insider’s Perspective
Convened by the Very Young Arbitration Practitioners (“VYAP”) networks of Morocco, Algeria and Egypt, this conference offered comparative perspectives from across North Africa, highlighting the expansion of the arbitration activity in the region since the 2011 Arab Spring.
Speakers included Yasmine Chouari and Munia El Harti (Morocco), Mounia Larbaoui and Adam Malek (Algeria), Yosr Bouassida (Tunisia), Sally El Sawah and Zyad Loutfi (Egypt), and Tarek Eltumi (Libya). Each addressed the legal transitions undergone by their respective jurisdictions.
Arbitration Frameworks and Recent Reforms
As presented by Yasmine Chouari, Morocco’s legal framework is constituted by Law No. 95-17, adopted in 2022. A 2024 decree established the first official list of arbitrators, published in 2025, managed by the Ministry of Justice and subject to annual updates. Munia El Harti Alonso explained that Morocco operates a dualist system, with a broad notion of international arbitration extending to cases involving at least one foreign-domiciled party.
Algeria’s framework remains governed by the Code of Civil and Administrative Procedure, with no major reform since the 2008 amendments. As highlighted by Adam Malek, these introduced the “compétence-compétence” principle, interim measures, autonomy of the arbitration agreement, judicial support, and a distinction between domestic and international arbitration. Arbitration is also addressed in sectoral laws such as the 2019 Hydrocarbons Law and the 2022 Investment Law.
Concerning Tunisia, as explained by Yosr Bouassida, it has had a standalone Arbitration Code since 1993, complemented by the 2016 Investment Law. It includes the “compétence-compétence” principle, waiver of challenges against international awards, and a “juge d’appui”. Tunisia was among the earliest signatories of the New York Convention (1958) and is currently considering further reform.
Libya adopted its first arbitration law in 2023, as noted by Tarek Eltumi, introducing a distinction between domestic and international arbitration. Previously, arbitration was governed by a Civil Procedure Code similar to Egypt’s, with limited development outside the hydrocarbons sector and subject to state approval.
Egypt’s 1994 Arbitration Law, described by Zyad Loutfi, is a stable and UNCITRAL Model Law-inspired framework, regularly amended. It introduces a higher threshold for arbitrator challenges (“serious doubts”) and requires ministerial approval for arbitration clauses in administrative or large-scale public contracts, reflecting continued state control.
Institutional Arbitration vs Ad hoc Proceedings
Morocco relies predominantly on ad hoc arbitration, while its key institutions include the Cour Marocaine d’Arbitrage (“CMA”), established under the auspices of the ICC Morocco and the Casablanca International Mediation and Arbitration Centre (“CIMAC”). Both institutions offer panels of arbitrators drawn from diverse legal traditions, nationalities, and linguistic backgrounds.
Algeria is a jurisdiction in which institutional arbitration prevails over ad hoc arbitration. Two principal arbitration centers are currently in operation: the Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration Center (“CACI”), which operates under Arbitration Rules adopted in 2014, and the Algerian International Center for Arbitration and Mediation (“AIAM”). In addition, the creation of a third institution, the so-called Algerian Dispute Resolution Center, was announced in March, with the stated objective of positioning Algeria as a regional hub for arbitration.
In Tunisia, the Centre de Conciliation et d’Arbitrage de Tunis (“CCAT”) has played a foundational role in the early development of institutional arbitration. In practice, however, ad hoc arbitration remains predominant, largely due to its flexibility and cost-effectiveness, particularly for SMEs. The reactivation of the ICC Tunisia National Committee is also a noteworthy development, as it has contributed to renewed engagement within the arbitration community.
Regarding Libya, the 2023 Arbitration Law provides that arbitral institutions must be licensed by the Ministry of Justice. The Libyan Center for International Commercial Arbitration (“LCICA”) exists under the 2023 law, but arbitration remains dominated by the State sector, especially in hydrocarbons and infrastructure contracts. Typically, those contracts rely mainly on institutional arbitration, particularly ICC arbitration seated in Paris. Libya is not a party to the New York Convention, considerably limiting domestic arbitration development.
Concerning Egypt, Sally El Sawah explained that it benefits from a strong institutional infrastructure, notably the Cairo Regional Centre for International Commercial Arbitration (“CRCICA”), established in 1979. It is complemented by the Egyptian Center for Arbitration and Settlement of Non-Banking Financial Disputes (“ECAS”), established in 2019. Sally further observed that, while regional centers were initially perceived as being subject to State control, experience has demonstrated that this concern was unfounded. Ad hoc arbitration remains marginal.
Judicial Support and Enforcement of Awards
Regarding enforcement, Yasmine explained that Moroccan courts are generally supportive towards arbitration and committed to its development, supported by judicial training initiatives led by CIMAC and the national school of magistrates.
Mounia Larbaoui observed that Algerian courts adopt a pro-enforcement stance, with limited exceptions such as international public policy. Enforcement is notably efficient: service on the opposing party reportedly follows within one to two weeks, with any appeal typically filed within one month, and even appellate review is conducted swiftly, with decisions rendered in approximately two months, resulting in overall predictability and limited interference.
Turning to Tunisia, Yosr highlighted certain specific features of the Tunisian arbitration framework. In particular, the annulment of an award constitutes a ground for refusing recognition before Tunisian courts. In practice, enforcement proceedings are adversarial. There is also a degree of procedural flexibility: for example, no translation is generally required where the relevant documents are in French.
The grounds for refusing recognition or seeking annulment of arbitral awards remain limited, and public policy is assessed by reference to private international law standards. Overall, Tunisian courts are generally arbitration-friendly, although certain exceptions have arisen in the case law and, in some instances, have been corrected following criticism from legal commentators.
Tarek explained that Libya presents significant enforcement difficulties. Public policy is undefined in both law and case law, granting courts broad discretion and making enforcement of awards highly uncertain.
As for Egypt, it maintains a strong pro-arbitration stance, with a narrow interpretation of international public policy. It centralizes jurisdiction before the Cairo Court of Appeal for international and foreign awards, whereas for domestic arbitration, before the court of ordinary competence. Finally, as noted by Sally, access to case law has improved following the Court of Cassation’s decision to publish its judgments.
Practical Challenges for Practitioners
With respect to the challenges faced by practitioners, Munia noted that annulment proceedings are swift in Morocco, but the losing party has only fifteen days to challenge the award, raising due process concerns. Enforcement against public entities is constrained by domestic law, which restricts seizure of public assets.
In Algeria, Mounia identified two main issues: inconsistent familiarity with arbitration at the first instance level, leading to misapplication of rules, and limited access to arbitration case law due to underdeveloped databases and non-publication of decisions.
Tunisia also presents certain practical challenges, including the limited publication of arbitration-related case law. Yosr noted that broader access to judicial decisions could support more detailed analysis of court reasoning and contribute to the continued development of arbitration practice. She also referred to foreign exchange controls as a practical consideration in the enforcement of awards and noted that a reform of the arbitration framework should be considered.
From the Libyan perspective, Tarek noted that, on the one hand, the judicial unfamiliarity with arbitration at first instance causes delays, and on the other hand, the absence of the New York Convention remains the principal obstacle to enforcement. Arbitration remains concentrated in strategic state-related sectors.
In Egypt, Sally concluded that enforcement issues persist in state-related disputes, requiring formal approval and procedural steps through the Ministry of Justice. Sensitive disputes may also face delays, as illustrated by the DIPCO v. Damietta Port Authority case, reflecting tensions between arbitral and administrative jurisdictions.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Aïda AMOR is a French-Moroccan lawyer, with experience gained at leading international law firms and as in-house counsel in the construction sector. She holds a Master’s degree in Arbitration and International Business Law (“MACI”) from the University of Versailles (now Paris-Saclay University). She is currently completing her bar training with the Arbitration team at Freshfields LLP in Paris, and is expected to be admitted to the Paris Bar in 2026. Aïda is a member of the Morocco VYAP Network.
*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.
