![[Template to duplicate] Sygna Partners Newsletter](https://dailyjus.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/article-collab-JM-Eglantine-Canale-Jamet-Dayane-Darwich.jpg)
International Arbitration Newsletter
First Semester 2025
THE AUTHORS:
Eglantine Canale Jamet, Associate at Sygna Partners
Dayane Darwich, Jurist and Trainee Lawyer at Sygna Partners
As a leading Paris-based firm in international law and dispute resolution, Sygna Partners brings its legal insight to Daily Jus. Through this collaboration, we feature select articles from Sygna’s biannual International Arbitration Newsletter, offering sharp analysis of key French court decisions and their broader relevance to the global arbitration community.
Summary
In 2015, the Italian jewellery company Alessi Domenico sold all of its shares in the Jordanian company Amor Jordan for USD 500,000. On the same day, the two companies concluded a commercial agreement under which Alessi Domenico entrusted Amor Jordan with selling jewellery items in its name in North America and with processing Alessi products destined for sale.
In 2022, Alessi Domenico served Amor Jordan with a demand for payment exceeding USD 1.7 million, corresponding to fifty‑six unpaid invoices. The demand, which invited Amor Jordan to settle the dispute amicably, granted a fifteen‑day response period. When Amor Jordan failed to reply within that time, Alessi Domenico initiated arbitration proceedings to obtain payment of the invoices.
By an award dated 25 June 2024, the arbitral tribunal ordered Amor Jordan to pay USD 2,376,435 (a sum covering the principal of the invoices, fixing differences and default interest), while partly upholding Amor Jordan’s counterclaims by ordering Alessi Domenico to pay a total of USD 1,592,480.83 (including a termination penalty) and dismissing the Jordanian company’s remaining claims. Each party was left to bear its own arbitration costs.
Amor Jordan applied to set the award aside, arguing that its enforcement would seriously prejudice its rights, and Alessi Domenico simultaneously brought the matter before the juge de la mise en l’état to have the award recognised and declared enforceable.
Concerning the formal requirements of Articles 1514 and 1515 FCCP, the judge noted that the English‑language award had indeed been accompanied by a French translation which, although submitted after the initial filing, had been produced sufficiently in advance, more than three weeks, so as to respect the adversarial principle before the hearing of 6 March 2025. As no challenge was raised to the accuracy of the translation, formal regularity was accepted.
On the merits, the judge recalled that exequatur may be refused only if the award is “manifestly contrary to international public policy”; the examination must therefore be confined to a reading of the award itself, without revisiting the substance. Amor Jordan relied on an alleged documentary fraud evidenced by a Jordanian accounting report dated 9 December 2024 and covering the period prior to 15 April 2015. Yet that document, produced after the arbitration had closed, had never been brought to the arbitrator’s attention; moreover, it concerned issues (gold inventories, trade receivables and the share‑transfer conditions) wholly unrelated to the dispute actually decided, which dealt with performance and termination of the 2015 commercial agreement for the years 2019 and 2020. The juge de la mise en l’état therefore concluded that the objections advanced would require a review on the merits, beyond its remit: no manifest breach of international public policy was apparent from the face of the award.
Having rejected this ground, the judge granted full exequatur of the award of 25 June 2024.
As to the application to stay enforcement, made under Article 1526 FCCP, it required proof of serious and present harm to the applicant’s rights. Amor Jordan maintained that immediate payment would cause its bankruptcy under Jordanian law and that the risk of non‑restitution was high because Alessi Domenico had no assets in France. However, no recent balance sheet, profit‑and‑loss account or cash‑flow statement was produced; the only evidence was an accountant’s certificate dated 29 January 2025, hypothetically stating that enforcement would create a loss amounting to 278 % of the share capital. The judge held that this uncorroborated document neither demonstrated the company’s true financial position nor established a certain and serious risk; he also observed that Alessi Domenico, being an Italian company within the European Union, operates in a system where recognition and enforcement of judgments are simplified, so that restitution in the event of future annulment cannot realistically be deemed uncertain. The request for a stay was therefore dismissed.
Strict Requirements for Suspension: A Deliberate Pro-Enforcement Architecture
This decision is a concrete reaffirmation of the stringent threshold applied by French courts when parties seek to suspend enforcement of international arbitral awards. French law deliberately sets the evidentiary bar high.
Since the Decree No. 2011-48 of 13 January 2011 reforming arbitration, awards rendered in international arbitration proceedings are immediately enforceable, without need for the tribunal to expressly grant provisional enforcement. Article 1526, paragraph 1 FCCP provides that neither an annulment action nor an appeal against an exequatur order suspends enforcement.
Yet, Article 1526, paragraph 2 FCCP leaves a narrow procedural safety valve. Where enforcement would “gravely harm the rights of one of the parties”, a judge may halt or tailor enforcement. But case law shows this discretion is rarely exercised: courts have consistently refused stays unless the applicant provides solid and present evidence of irreversible prejudice (See e.g. Paris Court of Appeal, 18 October 2011, Mambo Commodities, no. 11/14286, and 13 July 2012, CIEC Engineering, no. 12/11616). The Alessi Domenico ruling thus continues this line of authority: speculative claims or vague fears of bankruptcy, unsupported by financial statements, will not suffice.
Award Enforcement as a Policy Choice
The rigour of the French position is a deliberate policy stance: by making enforcement the default and suspension the rare exception, the French legal system seeks to preserve the international effectiveness of arbitration.
The non-suspensive nature of challenges reflects a deeply embedded presumption of the award’s validity. Courts are not to revisit the merits, nor delay enforcement without robust cause. This strengthens legal certainty and deters dilatory tactics. This orientation is part of a broader legal ecosystem favouring arbitration. Under Article L. 512-1 of the French Code of Civil Enforcement Procedures, an arbitral award, even absent exequatur, can justify conservatory measures immediately upon its issuance. This means that the award, while not yet enforceable as a judgment, can already serve as a basis for protective steps such as asset freezing, underscoring the trust placed in the arbitrator’s authority.
Moreover, even where an award creditor has no assets in France, as was the case in Alessi Domenico, the judge emphasized that the risk of non-restitution – should the award later be annulled – is not presumed. The existence of judicial cooperation mechanisms within the European Union, especially between France and Italy, means that enforcement and eventual restitution are practically and legally feasible.
Strategic Implications and Comparative Reflections
For parties operating in or targeting enforcement in France, the implications are clear. A party seeking to delay execution must assemble a comprehensive, up-to-date, and objectively verifiable record of the alleged harm. That includes recent financial statements, liquidity analyses, and possibly expert reports with quantified risk assessments. Mere assertions or hypothetical risks, however well-written, will not be entertained.
Under the French model, provisional enforcement is automatic, and the courts are institutionally structured to resist any interference with an award’s immediate effect. The practical result is a pro-enforcement system that makes France one of the most arbitration-friendly jurisdictions globally, not only in theory, but in procedural mechanics and judicial practice.
The Alessi Domenico case thus serves not only as an illustration of procedural strictness, but as a reminder of France’s deep-seated legal commitment to ensuring arbitral awards are treated with the same force and effectiveness as domestic judgments, unless clearly proven otherwise.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Eglantine Canale Jamet joined Sygna Partners‘ International Litigation and Arbitration Department in 2022 as an Associate. She holds a Master’s in Public International Law (Paris Nanterre) and an Advanced LL.M. in International Criminal Law (Leiden). She has gained experience with international courts (ICC and ICJ) as well as in the Legal Affairs Division of France’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Her practice focuses on immunities and international disputes, with a particular interest in evidence, open-source investigations, and procedural issues.
Dayane Darwich joined Sygna Partners’ International Litigation and Arbitration Department in 2022 as a Jurist and Trainee Lawyer. She holds a Master’s degree in International Law and International Organizations (Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne). She has worked on numerous contentious and advisory proceedings before the International Court of Justice, and has also gained experience at UNESCO. Her work spans a broad spectrum of issues in international law, with a primary focus on international disputes. She has a particular intellectual interest in questions relating to sanctions, territorial matters, the use of force, statehood, and human rights.
The authors thank Inès Pilpré, Legal Intern, for her valuable work.
*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.
