Paris Court of Appeal, RG no. 22/20898, decision dated 1 July 2025
The Paris Court of Appeal dismissed an application to set aside a partial award on jurisdiction in an investor-state arbitration, based on alleged non-compliance with the relevant bilateral investment treaty’s fork-in-the-road provision. The Court held that compliance with the provision went to admissibility, not jurisdiction, and was therefore outside the Court’s purview. The Court also held that it was not bound by the arbitral tribunal’s characterisation of the question as one that goes to jurisdiction, as opposed to admissibility.
French Court of Cassation, appeal no. 21-14.162, decision dated 7 May 2025
Ecuadorian travel company Seitur was the respondent in a Paris-seated ICC arbitration brought by Dutch company Carlson Wagonlit Holdings under a joint venture agreement relating to travel services in Ecuador. Seitur was unsuccessful.
Seitur brought a set-aside application to the Paris Court of Appeal, alleging reasonable doubts as to the impartiality of the arbitrator it had appointed. It alleged family ties and a friendship between the arbitrator and the manager of Polimundo, a company which took over as CWH’s joint venture partner in Ecuador. The ICC Secretariat had included Polimundo under “other relevant entities” on the Case Information document.
The Paris Court of Appeal held that Polimundo had no financial or commercial interest in the arbitration, since its outcome could only be an award of damages. The alleged ties between the arbitrator and Polimundo’s manager were therefore irrelevant. The Court of Cassation, France’s Supreme Court for non-administrative matters, dismissed Seitur’s appeal.
French Court of Cassation, appeal no. 23-14.368, decision dated 9 October 2024
The issue was whether the tribunal had temporal jurisdiction (ratione temporae) over a claim to money brought to enforce a settlement agreement. The claims underlying the settlement agreement arose before the BIT came into force, whereas the settlement agreement was entered into after the BIT came into force.
The arbitral tribunal found it had jurisdiction. The Paris Court of Appeal agreed, and recognised the award. The Court of Cassation held that this was an error, since claims to money are only covered investments if they are "related to" an investment, and thus the dispute to enforce the settlement agreement was not independent of the underlying dispute.
French Court of Cassation, appeal no. 23-10.972, decision dated 19 June 2024
The French Court of Cassation upheld the Paris Court of Appeal's decision setting aside an arbitral award rendered by a three-arbitrator tribunal based on doubts as to the impartiality of the presiding arbitrator (Thomas Clay) arising from a eulogy he gave of the lead counsel for one of the parties (Prof. Emmanuel Gaillard), which revealed that they were close personal friends and that the presiding arbitrator consulted the counsel before making any important decision.
Paris Court of Appeal, RG no. 21/08610, decision dated 2 May 2024
An arbitral award rendered by a three-arbitrator tribunal was set aside because of reasonable doubts as to the independence of the presiding arbitrator (Carole Malinvaud), whose firm (Gide) did work for a major shareholder of one of the parties.
Paris Court of Appeal, RG no. 20/18330, decision dated 10 January 2023
An arbitral award rendered by a three-arbitrator tribunal was set aside because of doubts as to the impartiality of the presiding arbitrator (Thomas Clay) arising from a eulogy he gave of the lead counsel for one of the parties (Prof. Emmanuel Gaillard), which revealed that they were close personal friends and that the presiding arbitrator consulted the counsel before making any important decision.
Paris Court of Appeal, RG no. 16/09386, decision dated 27 March 2018
An arbitral award rendered by a three-arbitrator tribunal was set aside because of a reasonable doubt as to the impartiality of one arbitrator, arising from that arbitrator's firm having acted for an affiliate of a party during the arbitration. This was not disclosed. The arbitrator had a continuing duty to disclose, which was breached here. It was irrelevant that the doubt existed only with respect to one of the party-appointed arbitrators, since each member of the tribunal was equally likely to influence the others during the hearing and deliberations.
Our approach
We aim to promote consistency in international arbitration law by providing translations into English of court decisions from major arbitral seats whose working language is not English.
Our translations are completed by professional legal translators and revised by an experienced international arbitration practitioner.
We do not believe in improperly delegating to artificial intelligence or automatic translation. Our content is the product of extensive reflection and effort to produce translations that capture legal nuances. We use technology only in a closely supervised manner.
This work is our own.
Copyright © English for Lawyers Consulting Inc.