![[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
The dispute at the heart of this matter arose from the termination of a 1989 agreement between Eurafrique and SICA SPR (now Senalia Union), relating to access to storage capacity in grain silos. Arbitration proceedings commenced in 2017 under an ad hoc clause, resulting in a partial award in April 2020 that delineated liability and a subsequent final award in January 2021 granting Eurafrique €3.39 million in damages, while also awarding Senalia Union a smaller sum for unpaid fees.
What began as a conventional post-award challenge transformed into a procedural anomaly when Eurafrique, in the course of annulment proceedings initiated in May 2021, notified a déclaration de faux incidente in May 2022. Eurafrique contends that the original of the 26 January 2021 award bears a forged signature attributed to the tribunal president. Specifically, the company argues that the arbitrator could not have physically signed the document, as he was hospitalized following a stroke on January 22, 2021, rendering him medically incapacitated. Moreover, one co-arbitrator reportedly refused to sign the award, adding to the alleged irregularities surrounding its finalization.
In response, the Paris Court of Appeal, by a ruling 21/09018 dated 14 March 2023, found the claim admissible and ordered a judicial handwriting examination. The expert was mandated to assess the authenticity of the signature on the original award, consult the parties, and, if necessary, interview the arbitral president himself. The court stayed all other aspects of the annulment challenge pending the outcome of the graphological investigation.
Following substantial procedural steps, including resistance by the expert to requests for the arbitrator’s personal health and banking records, the final forensic report was submitted on 15 March 2024. While the expert opined that the signature was “likely” not made by the arbitral president, she was unable to reach an absolute conclusion due to the lack of contemporaneous signature samples and limitations on investigative scope.
These evidentiary gaps left room for Senalia Union to argue that the expert’s conclusion lacks the degree of certainty necessary to overturn an arbitral award, particularly one that, under French law, carries the evidentiary force of an authentic instrument (acte authentique).
Eurafrique maintains that the technical and circumstantial evidence converges to establish that the signature is an imitation. It highlights not only the expert’s conclusion but also the alleged impossibility of signing on the award’s date, the arbitrator’s own statements regarding his incapacity, and the inconsistencies in the co-arbitrator’s account. It urges the court to declare the award a forgery and reject Senalia Union’s claims for sanctions, including a €10,000 civil fine and recovery of legal fees.
Conversely, Senalia Union argues that Eurafrique’s petition is speculative, lacks conclusive evidence, and is ultimately abusive. It invokes the principle of procedural preclusion under Article 1466 FCCP, noting that Eurafrique never sought replacement of the arbitrator during the proceedings despite alleged incapacity. Senalia contends that the expert’s use of the term “likely” introduces doubt, which is insufficient to displace the presumption of authenticity. Moreover, it points to additional expert opinions, particularly its own private report, confirming the genuineness of the signature. Accordingly, it seeks not only the dismissal of the falsehood claim but also significant financial sanctions for what it characterizes as a serious affront to the arbitrators’ independence and the arbitral process itself.
Analysis
Signature, Forgery, and Exequatur
In this case, after the arbitral proceedings had closed, the president of the tribunal was hospitalised, and one party began to suspect that the autograph affixed to the award might not be his.
That party therefore brought a procédure d’inscription de faux before the Court, i.e., the special French procedure for alleging that an authenticated document has been forged. Handwriting experts retained by the parties were divided, and the Court itself appointed a court‑expert in March 2023; yet even the expert’s report proved inconclusive.
In the end, the decisive element turned out to be the arbitrator’s own statement: he confirmed, unequivocally, that he had drafted and signed the award personally. On that basis, in Judgment 21/09018, dated 11 March 2025, the Court found that forgery had not been proved and dismissed the incident.
Although the factual narrative is unusual, the case raises broader theoretical questions. Under French law, a “false pleading” procedure is available only for public instruments (actes authentiques), and awards rendered in France belong to that class, so Articles 303 et seq. of FCCP had to be applied. If the signature were forged, criminal consequences could follow (Article 441-4 of the French Criminal Code provides for up to ten years’ imprisonment and a €150,000 fine).
The civil consequences are less straightforward. In domestic arbitration, Article 1492(6) expressly lists lack of signature as a ground for annulment. In international arbitration, however, the exhaustive list in Article 1520 does not include signature. If a forged autograph were discovered, the question remains whether this would vitiate the award, and, if so, on what ground.
Fraud, reviewable through international public policy, could be a strong ground, yet the content of the award may be entirely sound. As such, either one treats forgery as a defect so radical that it nullifies the award, thereby re‑introducing a formal requirement absent from Article 1520, or one allows the award, although bearing a faked signature, to survive. While the Paris Court did not need to choose as forgery was not made out, the unresolved tension remains.
Formal Compliance and Signature Requirements in Enforcement: A Comparative Perspective
Other jurisdictions present a starkly different approach to formal irregularities in arbitral awards when compared to the Eurafrique v. Senalia Union case (“Eurafrique“). While the French court in Eurafrique confronted allegations of forgery concerning the arbitrator’s signature, a fundamental concern going to the authenticity of the award itself, in the Dubai Court of Cassation Case no. 109, 21 April 2022, the court focused on the placement and completeness of the arbitrator’s signature rather than on its authenticity.
The Court’s insistence that both the reasons and operative sections of the award must bear the arbitrator’s signature highlights a rigid formalistic requirement. This contrasts with the French court’s more substantive inquiry into whether the award was genuinely signed by the arbitrator, ultimately prioritizing the evidentiary reality over formalistic criteria.
In the UAE, the failure to sign all parts of the award is treated as a ground for nullity, one that affects the award’s enforceability as a matter of public policy. This reflects a strong adherence to procedural formalities enshrined in the UAE Arbitration Law and echoes earlier judicial interpretations demanding strict compliance with signature requirements.
The court’s willingness to refuse enforcement based on the absence of signatures on the reasoning pages underscores a cautious stance that may pose significant hurdles for recognition of foreign awards in the UAE, even where the substantive merits of the award are unchallenged. By contrast, the French approach as illustrated in Eurafrique appears more flexible, emphasizing the genuine execution and authenticity of the award over mere formal defects, especially when no conclusive evidence of forgery is presented.
Taken together, these differences reveal a broader divergence in how jurisdictions balance the competing values of arbitration finality, procedural formalism, and the protection of the integrity of arbitral awards. The Eurafrique case reflects a legal culture more inclined to uphold an award when doubts about formal defects remain unresolved, whereas the UAE case embodies a stricter procedural orthodoxy that may prioritize formal compliance over substantive validation.
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.
