International Arbitration Newsletter
Second Semester 2025
THE AUTHOR:
Eglantine Canale Jamet, Associate 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.
Paris Court of Appeal, 28 October 2025, Averda Gabon, no. 23/16145
Subject Matter
Article 1520(5) FCCP – International public policy – Corruption
Corruption, which the arbitral tribunal recognized as affecting only part of the services object of a contract, and which did not in itself enable the contract to be obtained, and whose economic effects were neutralized by the arbitral tribunal, is not sufficient to set aside an award, in light of the principles governing international public policy review.
Summary
In December 2014, Gabon, two municipalities, and a Gabon-incorporated subsidiary of the UAE-headquartered Averda group entered into a contractual package for the provision of waste-management services and public-space cleaning services.
The package comprised a framework agreement and a supplementary contract signed on 29 December 2014, plus a subcontract signed on 26 December 2014 between Averda Gabon and Clean Africa (a Gabonese company) for part of the operational performance. The contracts were performed from 2015 to 2019.
Operational and financial tensions escalated in 2019, when Averda Gabon alleged payment delays, suspended services as of 1 August 2019, and then initiated ICC arbitration on 5 June 2020.
The controversy focused on invoicing for the cleaning work: the respondents alleged that part of the remuneration had been obtained through inflated or false invoices, validated via the corruption of a public official, and accompanied by a scheme through fraudulent supplier invoices.
In arbitration, Averda sought recovery of 34 million USD in unpaid invoices, alongside other financial claims linked to the contractual termination, including, notably the treatment of assets and equipment connected to performance.
In a final ICC award dated 23 August 2023, the arbitral tribunal held that there were “serious, precise and concordant” indicators of corruption affecting the performance of part of the cleaning services. Rather than dismissing the claim in full, the tribunal went into the details of the claims: it first granted payment claims relating to waste-collection services, which were not affected by the corruption allegations. Secondly, the tribunal awarded payment only for the portion of cleaning services it considered actually performed, applying a significant rebate of 35% to the unpaid balance so as to neutralise the potential economic benefit of the corrupt scheme.
Gabon and related entities filed an annulment application before the Paris Court of Appeal under Article 1520(5) FCCP, arguing that the award violated international public policy because it still gave effect at least partially to contracts whose performance had been tainted by corruption and over-invoicing.
By its decision of 28 October 2025, the Paris Court of Appeal rejected the annulment application. The Court reiterated that corruption and money laundering form part of French international public policy, and that its control focuses on whether recognition and enforcement of the award would, in a “characterised” manner, give effect to corruption or allow a party to benefit from it.
It further recalled that this control is not confined to the record before the arbitrators and that the Court is not bound by the tribunal’s factual or legal characterisations. Yet, on the merits, the Court found that the corruption did not taint the conclusion of the contracts, that only part of the cleaning services was affected, and that the tribunal had taken strict steps to strip out the benefit. The Court noted that the tribunal notably excluded payment for non-performed services and applied a 35% rebate, which corresponded to the most stringent rate discussed, supported by the applicants’ own expert. Enforcement of the award was therefore not considered to give effect to corruption.
Analysis
Anti-Corruption in Public Policy Review
Following its previous new tendency to a more surgical inquiry (See e.g. Paris Court of Appeal, 4 June 2024, no. 22/14437), the Court appears to move away from an absolute approach.
In Averda v. Gabon and others, the discussion was less on the existence of corruption but rather on what follows from that premise. When corruption affects performance and induces overbilling, improper certifications, and concealment for example, it does not automatically eradicate the entire contractual relationship. What matters is whether the award has neutralised the corrupt gain.
This discussion has a two-fold purpose, both to preserve the integrity of the anti-corruption objective and to prevent public policy from becoming a procedural escape allowing a defeated party to erase uncontested value (here, the services rendered).
The Court re-states that the annulment judge is not the judge of the contract, but only the judge of the award’s insertion into the French legal order. Annulment is reserved for situations where recognition/enforcement would violate French international public policy in a characterised way.
As such, the Court considers the tribunal reasoning to establish or not such a violation. In this case, it separated waste collection (unaffected) from cleaning (partly affected), and accepted that some cleaning services were performed, it excluded payment for services it found not properly performed, and it applied a heavy discount intended to eliminate any residual corrupt benefit.
Therefore, the Court could credibly conclude that enforcement would not “give effect” to corruption, and that the award’s enforcement would not violate French international public policy in a characterized way.
Pragmatic Use of Arbitral Fact-Finding
The Court is not limited to the evidentiary record before the arbitrators and is not bound by their findings or characterisations. The judgment illustrates a pragmatic approach: where the tribunal has conducted a detailed instruction and produced a methodology specifically designed to expunge corrupt benefit, the Court may treat that arbitral reasoning as a reliable foundation.
In this decision, the Court leverages the parties’ own positions on quantification, and notes that the 35% rebate (“réfaction”) adopted corresponds to the strict end of the range argued in arbitration, indeed aligned with the applicants’ expert’s conclusions.
Finally, the Court anchors its reasoning in the fact that it was not alleged that the contracts were obtained by corruption; the problem concerned execution and invoicing mechanics. Remains the question whether the same “neutralisation” approach would survive when elements point to corruption at the moment of contracting, where the legitimacy of the bargain itself is compromised.
The logic of the Averda judgment suggests that this detailed and fact-based analysis and weighing is easiest when the issue is affecting downstream consequences, such as performance, rather than have upstream sources, such as consent or the award of the contract.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
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.
*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.
