OUT-LAW ANALYSIS 6 min. read
French arbitration law evolves ahead of possible widespread reform
31 Mar 2026, 8:53 am
As momentum builds for widespread reform of French arbitration law, Paris’ status as a global arbitration hub looks only set to rise in 2026.
The French Ministry of Justice’s Working Group released a report in March 2025 putting forward a unified arbitration code to consolidate domestic and international arbitration. If adopted, this new reform would mark the first major overhaul of French arbitration law since the 2011 reform.
During Paris Arbitration Week 2025, Justice Minister Gérald Darmanin announced that the French arbitration law reform would proceed in three stages: first, a decree introducing agreed measures – originally planned for autumn 2025 but still pending; second, a set of more sensitive changes expected in summer 2026; and third, the adoption of a unified arbitration code in autumn 2026. These deadlines may change due to the delay in the initial phase. The reform aims to boost France’s appeal as an arbitration centre and will be relevant to businesses using arbitration.
In parallel, under the patronage of UNCITRAL, France hosted in late 2025 the third meeting on the operationalisation of the Advisory Centre on Investment Dispute Resolution, thereby reaffirming its commitment to a more balanced and accessible investor‑state dispute settlement system, particularly one that strengthens the capacities of developing countries. In this context, France positioned itself as one of the states expressing interest in hosting the centre’s headquarters or a regional office.
Paris has also continued to reinforce its status as a leading hub for international arbitration and ranks among the top five most preferred international arbitration seats worldwide, owing partly to the presence of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) headquarters, which continues to administer a large volume of commercial and investment arbitral proceedings from in Paris. Further, in 2024 alone, 91 of the 831 new arbitration cases under the auspices of the ICC were seated in France, making it the second most popular seat after the UK. Paris also hosts two hearing centres, one under the ICC auspices and the other under Delos.
French law continues to be a popular choice for governing law, especially in contracts involving European parties or civil law jurisdiction. Together with the ICC, the Paris Court of Appeal plays a critical role in enforcement and procedural assistance to arbitration proceedings. Before the Paris Court of Appeal, the international chamber handles cases related to international trade, allowing parties to use English for oral arguments, exhibits, witness statements, and expert reports.
A recent legal change has enhanced the jurisdiction of the Paris Court of Appeal: Article 25 of the Law No. 2024-537 introduced article L. 311-16-1 into the Judicial Organisation, effective 1 June 2025, granting the Paris Court of Appeal exclusive jurisdiction over set-aside requests and appeal against exequatur decisions in international matters. Previously, matters which involved administrative law and international public policy fell within the jurisdiction of administrative courts.
This new law which extends the Paris Court of Appeal’s jurisdiction to disputes involving French government entities is a welcome change for energy and infrastructure companies as infra-energy projects often involve state-owned entities.
In the same vein, the reform proposes to further extend the jurisdictional scope of the international chamber of the Paris Court of Appeal to include annulment and enforcement proceedings of international awards in France. If adopted, this will further strengthen the attractiveness of Paris as a place of arbitration by creating a fully unified court-enforcement regime with specialised judges.
While the reform will continue to be a major talking point in France in 2026, the past 12 months have seen the French courts continue to reinforce arbitration-friendly jurisprudence through a number of significant judicial developments or confirmations.
In one case, the Paris Court of Appeal confirmed that ‘arbitral award’ is defined strictly in France, and that annulment proceedings against procedural orders are not generally admissible as they do not constitute arbitral awards. The court reaffirmed that an award is an arbitrators’ decision that resolves a dispute on its merits, jurisdiction, or procedural grounds, bringing the arbitration to an end. This definition generally excludes most procedural orders, including procedural orders issued by emergency arbitrators. The reform may introduce a change to this regime as it provides for the possibility to seek enforcement of an interim measure, including orders of emergency arbitrators, before domestic courts.
In another matter (CA Paris, 16 Sept. 2025, n° 23.18252, the Mercuria case), the Paris Court of Appeal confirmed that an arbitration agreement in an international contract extends to any party that is implicated in the contract’s execution and performance, as well as to subsequent disputes. This principle applies if it can be verified that the parties were aware of and accepted the arbitration agreement, even implicitly, regardless of signing the contract containing the agreement. This decision follows the well-known Dalico ruling of 1993 and adds that the principles of efficiency and good faith interpretation of agreements are cornerstones of French arbitration rules on consent to arbitration.
In another significant ruling (Paris, 30 sept. 2025, n° 23/11499, the Astaris case), the Paris Court of appeal rejected a set aside application for lack of jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal on the ground that the applicant had waived its right to contest the tribunal’s jurisdiction in breach of article 1466 CPC. In this case, the applicant had raised its objection to the arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction during the course of the arbitration proceedings but changed the basis of the objection at the annulment stage. Under the current interpretation of article 1466 CPC by the French Supreme Court, a waiver only occurs if the party fails to object to the arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction until the annulment stage; however, a party could introduce new jurisdictional arguments at the annulment stage as long as the objection had been raised before the arbitral tribunal. Here, the Paris Court of Appeal seemed take a much stricter approach. It remains to be seen whether this case will be followed in subsequent jurisprudence.
The Court of Appeal also handed down, once again, in the Oschadbank case, a strict analysis of arbitrator impartiality. The court ruled that an arbitrator cannot be regarded as lacking partiality for the simple fact that he asked leave to file an amicus curiae brief on an earlier, separate case involving one of the parties to the arbitration after the award was issued (CA Paris, 1 Jul. 2025, n°24 05336)
In another Court of Appeal case, a judge in charge of procedural matters ruled that forgery claims in arbitral proceedings must relate directly to the enforcement order, reaffirming the stringent requirements under French law for staying the enforcement of international arbitration awards. The court also upheld an arbitral award that neutralised the effects of corruption. This reaffirmed its position that the prohibition of corruption is a matter of international public policy and that judicial review aims to prevent enforcement of awards that allow a party to benefit from criminal conduct. It remains to see whether the Cour de Cassation will follow.
In one long-running dispute, the Court of Appeal handed down a novel decision on the interaction between the New York Convention and French arbitration law, ruling that French judges may disregard the New York Convention and apply the principles of French international arbitration law if they are more favourable to the enforcement of arbitral awards
In another case concerning translation, the Court of Cassation confirmed that, if not already in French, a certified French translation of an arbitral award is mandatory for enforcement. However, the court ruled that there was no formalised timeframe within which the translation must be conducted, saying that it was sufficient that the translation of the award be produced in time to allow the opposing party to examine and respond to it effectively.
A number of significant recent ISDS settlements also reasserted Paris as a key arbitration hub.
In one case, a Paris court lifted the attachment of Iraqi state assets that were previously frozen as a result of EU sanctions, while in another case the court lifted the seizure of eight properties used to accommodate Vietnamese diplomatic staff.
In another ruling, a Paris court denied a Dutch company the ability to seize assets that had been frozen due to international sanctions against Iraq, underscoring the necessity of seeking prior authorisation of the French Treasury, the Direction Générale du Trésor, as required by the 2003 EU regulation against Iraq.
ICSID also registered a claim by an Armenian real estate tycoon against France, based on the 1995 Armenia-France bilateral investment treaty (BIT). Meanwhile, in the post-Achmea and Komstroy landscape, French courts continued to enforce intra-EU BIT and Energy Charter Treaty (ECT) awards unless there is a manifest violation of French international public policy.
In 2026, Paris Arbitration Week, which is always a key fixture in the international arbitration calendar, will celebrate its 10th anniversary. Last year, the event attracted over 10,000 participants from 135 countries, with 187 events taking place across Paris and online, covering topics ranging from artificial intelligence, investment arbitration in Central Asia, confidentiality and transparency, enforcement of awards and asset tracing and, of course, the proposed reforms of French arbitration law.
Co-written by Scheherazade Dubash and Johanne Brocas of Pinsent Masons.
Written by
