Arbitration lawyer in Paris: clause, proceedings and challenges to an international award.

Where the seat of the international arbitration is in France, the Court of Cassation does not require the clause to be linked to a national law. It holds that the existence and effectiveness of the arbitration agreement are assessed according to the common intention of the parties, subject to the mandatory rules of French law and international public policy, unless the parties have expressly subjected the clause to a specific law. In the judgment of 28 September 2022, the choice of English law to govern the contract was not enough to subject the clause itself to that law: the court of appeal could apply the French substantive rules of the seat. A practical consequence follows. If you want a specific law to govern the clause, the provision must say so expressly; failing that, the Paris court will look for the parties' common intention in all their exchanges and contractual documents. The main contract may be governed by a foreign law without changing the regime of the clause. On the merits, the arbitrators apply the rules of law chosen by the parties or, failing that, those they consider appropriate, and always take trade usages into account (Article 1511 of the Code of Civil Procedure).

Article 1520 of the Code of Civil Procedure allows an action to set aside in five cases only: the arbitral tribunal wrongly upheld or declined jurisdiction; it was irregularly constituted; it ruled without complying with its mandate; the adversarial principle was not respected; recognition or enforcement of the award is contrary to international public policy. The list is closed. An error of law or a wrong assessment of the evidence by the arbitrators is not, in itself, a ground for setting aside. The Court of Cassation recalled this in relation to the review of jurisdiction: “this review excludes any review of the merits of the award” (Cass. 1re civ., 2 April 2025, No. 23-16.338) (our translation). Where jurisdiction was debated before the arbitrators, however, the parties are “not deprived of the right to raise new grounds and arguments on this question before the court hearing the action to set aside” (Cass. 1re civ., 2 December 2020, No. 19-15.396) (our translation). The preliminary work therefore consists in going back over each criticism and checking whether it falls within one of the five cases, with the documents from the arbitral proceedings that prove it. A criticism that does not fit weakens the action instead of strengthening it. The firm selects the useful grounds before drafting the action.

The action to set aside is brought before the Paris Court of Appeal. It may be brought as soon as the award is made; it becomes inadmissible one month after notification, which is effected by service unless the parties agree otherwise (Article 1519 of the Code of Civil Procedure). The time limit expires on the last day at midnight and, if it falls on a Saturday, a Sunday or a public or non-working holiday, it is extended to the next working day (Article 642 of the Code of Civil Procedure). The starting point therefore depends on the exact form of notification: proper service, or the method provided for by the clause or the arbitration rules. Where the recipient is a foreign State, the question becomes more delicate. The Paris Court of Appeal has recalled that “the starting point of the time limit for the action, in the case of international notification to a foreign State, is determined according to the applicable conventions” (CA Paris, pôle 5 ch. 16, 14 May 2024, No. 23/01696) (our translation). In that case, since there was no proof that the document had been delivered to the designated recipient, the time limit had not started to run and the State's action was held admissible. For a private company, prudence calls for counting the time limit from the first delivery of the award and not waiting for the end of an amicable discussion.

No, as a rule. In international arbitration, neither the action to set aside nor an appeal against the exequatur order blocks enforcement. The First President, in urgent proceedings, or the pre-trial judge once the case is before the court, may nevertheless stop enforcement or adapt its terms where it risks seriously prejudicing the rights of one of the parties (Article 1526 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in the version in force on 1 November 2026, which continues to govern awards not subject to the new text under Article 22 of the decree of 6 August 2026). This serious prejudice must be supported by documents suited to the risk invoked, in particular financial documents where the company's continuity is at stake. In an order of 12 September 2023 (CA Paris, pôle 5 ch. 16, No. 22/14963), the pre-trial judge stopped enforcement of an award of €18 million after noting, in light of a report by the statutory auditors, that “immediate enforcement of the award would be likely to compromise the company's continuity as a going concern and the sustainability of its activities” (CA Paris, pre-trial judge's order, 12 September 2023) (our translation). Mere disagreement with the award is not enough. For awards made after 1 January 2027, the new text provides for suspending enforcement by an order that cannot be appealed (Article 1526 as worded in the decree of 6 August 2026).

No. The court hearing the action to set aside reviews the award against the five cases in Article 1520, without re-examining whether the arbitrators' solution was well founded. In a judgment of 2 April 2025, the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment that had set aside an award declining jurisdiction: the court of appeal had characterised the requirement of a prior investment as a rule of substance, then set aside the award for having applied it, which amounted to reviewing the award on the merits. The same judgment approves, on another point, the distinction between the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal and the admissibility of claims: failure to observe a procedural precondition “related not to the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal, but to the examination of the admissibility of the claims, which escaped the review of the court hearing the action to set aside” (Cass. 1re civ., 2 April 2025, No. 23-16.338) (our translation). For a party considering an action, this case law is unfavourable where the criticism in fact concerns the interpretation of the contract or the assessment of the facts. The firm therefore first checks whether the ground goes to the arbitrators' power to rule or only to the way they judged.

Yes, where the ground relates to substantive international public policy. The Court of Cassation holds that “compliance with substantive international public policy cannot be made conditional on a party's attitude before the arbitrator” (Cass. 1re civ., 7 September 2022, No. 20-22.118) (our translation). In that case, the State argued that the award gave effect to a settlement obtained by corruption. The Court approved the court of appeal for examining all the documents produced, even new ones, noting that “no limit is placed on its power to investigate, in law and in fact, all the elements concerning the defects in question” (same judgment) (our translation). This openness does not dispense with proof. Corruption or money laundering is shown by precise and consistent evidence, argued in adversarial proceedings before the court. A general allegation, without documents, is not enough. Nor does the solution apply to procedural irregularities, such as the constitution of the tribunal, which are subject to the waiver rule in Article 1466 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The court hearing the action to set aside must determine whether recognition or enforcement of the award is compatible with international public policy. In the leading judgment of 23 March 2022 (Cass. 1re civ., No. 17-17.981), the Court of Cassation approved the setting aside of an investment award whose enforcement would have let the investor benefit from the proceeds of money laundering. It specifies that the court's inquiry “was neither limited to the evidence produced before the arbitrators nor bound by the findings, assessments and characterisations made by them” (Cass. 1re civ., 23 March 2022) (our translation). The review nonetheless remains demanding for the party invoking it. In a judgment of 23 January 2024 (CA Paris, pôle 5 ch. 16, No. 22/16431), the Paris Court of Appeal dismissed an action arguing that the contract enforced by the award was an anticompetitive agreement, after recalling that “this review is concerned only with examining whether enforcement of the provisions made by the arbitral tribunal flagrantly violates the principles and values contained in this international public policy” (CA Paris, 23 January 2024) (our translation). These two decisions show the dividing line: a characterised and proven breach, and not a mere discussion of the law applied.

Not necessarily. The court assesses whether the circumstances invoked may give rise, in the parties' minds, to a reasonable doubt as to the arbitrator's independence and impartiality, qualities that the Court of Cassation describes as being “of the very essence of the arbitral function” (Cass. 1re civ., 7 June 2023, No. 21-24.968) (our translation). In that case, the arbitrator had been appointed twice by the opposing party's law firm and had written two legal opinions for it; the court of appeal held that these relations were not systematic so as to create a flow of business, and the appeal to the Court of Cassation was dismissed. The same decision is unfavourable on a second point: the party that had unsuccessfully applied to the institution for removal, then defended itself on the merits without raising the irregularity before the arbitral tribunal, was deemed to have waived it. The arbitrator must disclose, before and during the mandate, any circumstance of this kind, and a dispute over whether the arbitrator should remain is settled by the institution or by the supporting judge, seised within one month of the disclosure or of the discovery of the fact (Article 1456 of the Code of Civil Procedure).

Yes, where the clause is unfair within the meaning of European Union law. In a judgment of 30 September 2020 (Cass. 1re civ., No. 18-19.241), a client residing in France had signed, for advice on an inheritance in Spain, an offer of services referring disputes to arbitration in Madrid. The Court of Cassation approved the court of appeal for setting the clause aside, holding that “the procedural rule of priority laid down by that provision cannot have the effect of making it impossible, or excessively difficult, to exercise the rights conferred on the consumer by Community law” (Cass. 1re civ., 30 September 2020) (our translation). The court had noted a standard clause pre-drafted by the professional, stipulated in French in the first offer and then only in the general terms in Spanish in the second, which the client, who was not fluent in Spanish, was not in a position to negotiate. Under domestic law, Article 2061 of the French Civil Code (Code civil) also prohibits relying on the clause against a person who signed outside their professional activity. Between companies, the priority of the arbitral tribunal remains the rule. The firm therefore checks the status of each party, the circumstances of signing and the drafting of the clause before arguing that it is inapplicable.

Yes, until the arbitral tribunal is constituted. Article 1449 of the Code of Civil Procedure then allows recourse to the state court for an investigative measure, or for a provisional or protective measure, protective attachments and judicial security interests following their own rules. The ruling is made by the President of the judicial court, or of the court competent in commercial matters, applying Article 145 where evidence is to be established. The right court must still be seised. In a judgment of 23 June 2021 (Cass. 1re civ., No. 19-13.350), the Court of Cassation held that the President of the Paris commercial court did not have territorial jurisdiction to order investigative measures against companies domiciled in Calvados, even though the seat of the arbitration was set in Paris. The competent court is the one that would hear the merits if the parties did not rely on the clause, or that of the place where the measures are to be carried out. Once the arbitral tribunal is constituted, interim applications must in principle be addressed to it.

The clause, or the arbitration rules to which it refers, first provides the appointment mechanism (Article 1508 of the Code of Civil Procedure). Where the institution responsible for organising the arbitration does not act, or where there is no institution, the supporting judge takes over. In international arbitration, unless the clause provides otherwise, this judge is the President of the Paris judicial court, in particular where the arbitration takes place in France (Article 1505 of the Code of Civil Procedure). In a decision of 15 December 2023 (Paris judicial court, No. 23/57974), the President of the Paris judicial court, ruling as supporting judge, appointed a sole arbitrator after the defendant, invited to respond to a proposal, had remained silent, and after a prior mediation provided for in the contract had failed. The application to the supporting judge must establish the clause, the seat, notification of the dispute and the deadlock. From 1 January 2027, the Paris supporting judge may also be seised for the production of a document held by a third party resident in France (Article 1505 as worded in the decree of 6 August 2026).

Yes, in international arbitration, by a special and express agreement, concluded at any time (Article 1522 of the Code of Civil Procedure). A general wording on the finality of the award does not necessarily suffice to express this waiver: the text requires a special agreement. The waiver does not erase all review. The parties may still appeal against the exequatur order on one of the five grounds in Article 1520, within one month of notification of the award bearing the exequatur, a period that Article 643 extends by two months for persons living abroad. Review is therefore moved to the stage of enforcement in France, without disappearing. This choice is best made when the contract is drafted, weighing what it adds in speed and what it removes in safeguards. It also requires checking whether the award is meant to be enforced in France or in another State, where review will follow other rules. Conversely, the party that has obtained an award checks whether its opponent has waived this action before discussing the admissibility of the one it brings.

The reform text, Decree No. 2026-741 of 6 August 2026, takes effect on 1 January 2027, but its Article 22 sets three distinct starting points. The new rules on the arbitration agreement, including the definition of international arbitration, apply to agreements concluded after that date; the new text refers to international economic interests (new Article 1504). The rules concerning in particular the constitution of the tribunal and disclosure apply to arbitral tribunals constituted from 2027. Those governing the award, exequatur and challenges, including Articles 1526 and 1527, apply to awards made after that date. For an award made from 2027, dismissal of the action to set aside on the merits gives the award exequatur or, if its enforcement cannot be pursued, recognition (new Article 1527). On 1 November 2026, an arbitration commenced under an old clause may therefore fall successively under both regimes. The firm dates each step, agreement, constitution and award, before applying a text.