Paris is considered a legally secure and user-friendly seat for international arbitration.

1.1 Advantages

Some of the advantages of arbitration in France are:

• recognition by local courts of the competence-competence principle (negative effect), giving absolute priority to the arbitral tribunal to rule on its jurisdiction in the presence of an arbitration agreement, unless the latter is manifestly null and void or inapplicable. This ensures there is little court interference;
• priority is given to party autonomy;
• experienced and specialised domestic courts, such as the specialised international chambers at the International Commercial Chamber of the Paris Court of Appeal (ICCP-CA) with exclusive jurisdiction over setting-aside proceedings and appeals against decisions granting leave to enforce international arbitral awards as of 1 June 2025, and the President of the Paris First Instance Court (Tribunal judiciaire) to assist the parties with the constitution of the arbitral tribunal if necessary; and
• effective and swift recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards, with the action to set aside or appeal against the order granting leave to enforce having no suspensive effect, save where the applicant demonstrates that enforcement will severely prejudice his/her rights.

1.2 Disadvantages and common pitfalls

The main disadvantages of arbitration in France are that:

• French courts proceed with a de novo review of the case where it is argued that the arbitral tribunal wrongly upheld or declined jurisdiction or that the recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award would contravene French international public policy;
• French courts agree to consider evidence and arguments never submitted to the arbitral tribunal where it is argued that the arbitral tribunal wrongly upheld or declined jurisdiction or that the recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award would contravene French international public policy; and
• French courts agree to enforce awards that have been set aside at the seat of the arbitration, which could lead to conflicting outcomes but could also be seen as an advantage in certain circumstances.

1.3 Distinctive features

The protocol governing the ICCP-CA allows witnesses, experts, and foreign legal counsel to use English without requiring translation. This facilitates accessibility for international parties and reduces costs, enhancing France’s appeal as an arbitration hub.

2.1 Legal framework

French arbitration law is set out: (i) under Articles 2059 to 2061 of the French Civil Code; and (ii) under Articles 1442 to 1527 of the French Code of Civil Procedure (CCP).

2.2 What qualifies under domestic law as “international arbitration”? Is there a specific statute?

Under Article 1504 of the CCP, “[a]rbitration is international when it involves the interests of international trade”, which is to be understood as any arbitration relating to a transaction that occurs economically in several States. French courts have interpreted this provision from an economic standpoint exclusively, regardless of other criteria, including the nationality of the parties, the seat of the arbitration, the applicable law, or the parties’ intention.

2.3 Ratification of the New York Convention

France ratified the New York Convention in 1959.

2.4 Ratification of the ICSID Convention

France ratified the ICSID Convention in 1967.

2.5 Other treaties relating to arbitration

France is a contracting party to different multilateral conventions, including the European Convention of 1961. France was a contracting party to the Energy Charter Treaty of 1994 but withdrew from it effective on 8 December 2023.

France is also a contracting party to numerous bilateral investment treaties (BITs) with other countries, although France signed the European Union (EU) Agreement for the Termination of BITs between the Member States in 2020, following the EU Court of Justice’s decision in Case No. C-284/16 Slowakische Republic v. Achmea BV.

2.6 Choice of forum for intra-EU dispute settlement

Following the EU Agreement for the Termination of Intra-EU BITs in 2020, subsequent to the EU Court of Justice’s decision in Case No. C-284/16 Slowakische Republic v. Achmea BV, intra-EU investor–State disputes must be resolved before national courts of Member States. These disputes may involve the EU courts through preliminary ruling procedures.

Intra-EU investor–State arbitrations based on the Energy Charter Treaty or on ad hoc arbitration agreements were also deemed incompatible with EU law.

2.7 Is the municipal law governing arbitration based on UNCITRAL Model Law?

French arbitration law is not based on the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration and is deemed more favourable, notably because the grounds for refusing the recognition or enforcement of an award are more limited (Article 1514 CCP) and it is possible to waive a party’s right to set aside an award.

2.8 Recent amendments or reforms in arbitration laws

In France, the most significant reform of arbitration law took place with the adoption of Decree No. 2011-48 on 13 January 2011. This reform aimed to modernise French arbitration law, codify case law, and enhance the efficiency of enforcement of arbitral awards. In 2018, France established the ICCP-CA (see Section 1.1) and the International Commercial Chamber of the Paris Commercial Court (ICCP-CC). In 2024, France enacted Law No. 2024-537, which formally granted the ICCP-CC jurisdiction over annulment and enforcement proceedings in international arbitration cases. On 26 March 2025, a working group convened by the French Ministry of Justice has published a report and reform proposals for a new reform of French arbitration law.

3.1 Presence of local arbitration institutions

The main international arbitration institution located in France is the International Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), which is considered the leading arbitration institution internationally.

France is also home to the Centre de Médiation et d’Arbitrage de la Chambre de Commerce et d’Industrie de Paris (CMAP), the Association Française d’Arbitrage (AFA), the Chambre Arbitrale Internationale de Paris (CAIP), and DELOS Dispute Resolution.

3.2 Does the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) have a local office?

No.

3.3 Does the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) have a local office?

No.

3.4 Does the ICC International Court of Arbitration have a local office?

Yes — the ICC is headquartered in Paris.

3.5 Does the International Centre for Dispute Resolution (ICDR) have a local office?

No.

3.6 Agreement entered into with local offices of international arbitration institutions

Although not a local office, the ICSID has a hearing centre in Paris through the World Bank Group’s facilities.

4.1 Requirements as to content and form

International arbitration agreements are not subject to any substantive or formal requirements and do not have to be in writing, other than for evidentiary reasons.

Conversely, domestic arbitration agreements must be made in writing, either in the main agreement in which it is contained or by reference. Agreements to arbitrate may also be drawn up once a dispute has already arisen, in which case, the subject matter of the dispute must be specified.

4.2 Validity of arbitration agreements

The arbitration agreement is separable from the main contract in which it is contained directly or by reference. As a result, the arbitration agreement remains valid notwithstanding the inefficiency, nullity or termination of the underlying contract.

The existence, validity and effectiveness of an international arbitration agreement is assessed on the basis of the common intention of the parties, subject only to French mandatory rules and international public policy. Consequently, the sole mention of “arbitration” in an international agreement is sufficient to consider that the arbitration agreement is valid.

The validity of domestic arbitration agreements is subject to the capacity of the parties to arbitrate as well as to their free and informed consent when executing the arbitration agreement, although arbitration agreements may be enforceable against non-signatory third parties. Moreover, a domestic arbitration agreement cannot be enforced against a non-professional party if such party objects. Consequently, an arbitration agreement entered into with or between non-professionals is valid but not opposable against the objecting non-professional contracting party.

4.3 Special formalities

In domestic arbitration, the State or public bodies or administrations may only enter into arbitration agreements if a specific decree allows it.

This rule does not apply to French state-owned companies, nor does it apply to international arbitration, for which no specific formalities are required to conclude an arbitration agreement with the State or its entities.

4.4 Governing law

Pursuant to a substantive rule (“règle matérielle”) of French international arbitration law, the existence, validity and effectiveness of an international arbitration agreement is assessed based on the common intention of the parties, subject only to French mandatory rules and international public policy, without it being necessary to conduct a conflict-of-law approach and refer to a domestic law, save where the parties have expressly subjected the validity and the effects of the arbitration agreement itself to such a law.

5.1 Applicable restrictions

In French international arbitration, certain subject matters are not arbitrable, such as:

• matters involving certain extra-patrimonial rights, such as personal status, capacity, marriage, divorce;
• the imposition of criminal sanctions;
• matters concerned with the registration or validity of patents, trademarks, designs, or other similar rights required to be deposited or registered;
• the determination of tax liability; and
• the issuance of administrative sanctions and fines in competition law matters.

In domestic arbitration, the above subject matters are also not arbitrable, along with disputes concerning public bodies or administrations (except for some of their industrial or commercial activities, if authorised by decree) and, more generally, any public policy matters.

6.1 Stay of proceedings

Parties or the arbitral tribunal may decide to stay the arbitral proceedings for a time or until the occurrence of an event that they determine. The arbitral tribunal may subsequently revoke the stay or shorten its duration depending on the circumstances.

Arbitral proceedings are automatically stayed if:

• a party is put into insolvency proceedings (until the insolvency practitioner is joined to the proceedings); or
• the replacement of an arbitrator is required (due to the arbitrator’s incapacity, resignation, successful challenge, removal, or passing).

6.2 Anti-suit injunctions

State courts have jurisdiction to order interim relief before the arbitral tribunal is constituted. However, French courts do not order anti-suit injunctions to restrain a party from commencing or continuing legal proceedings in breach of an arbitration agreement. Conversely, arbitral tribunals seated in France have broad powers to order any interim relief, including anti-suit injunctions.

A foreign anti-suit injunction may be recognised and enforced in France if it: (i) is issued by a court outside of the EU, with jurisdiction to order such injunction; (ii) does not violate French international public policy; and (iii) satisfies general exequatur requirements under French law. Anti-suit injunctions issued by courts of EU member states to restrain legal proceedings in another member state may not be recognised nor enforced in France pursuant to the European Court of Justice West Tanker case law.

7.1 Restrictions on the parties’ freedom to choose arbitrators

Parties cannot appoint active French judges as arbitrators. Apart from that, French law does not impose any restriction on the parties’ freedom to choose arbitrators in international arbitration.

In domestic arbitration, the number of arbitrators must be odd, and arbitrators must be natural persons.

7.2 Requirement of arbitrator independence and impartiality

Under French arbitration law, arbitrators are required to be independent and impartial. Therefore, arbitrators must disclose any fact or circumstance which may give rise to reasonable doubts in the mind of the parties as to their independence or impartiality prior to accepting their appointment and throughout the arbitral proceedings.

This requirement is construed extensively by French courts, although arbitrators are not required to disclose facts or circumstances that are of public knowledge or easily accessible.

An incomplete or inaccurate disclosure by an arbitrator could lead to the challenge of the arbitrator or the setting aside of the award if the undisclosed fact or circumstance is considered as giving rise to reasonable doubts in the mind of the parties as to the independence or impartiality of the arbitrator.

7.3 Mandatory rules applicable to the appointment process

The appointment process must comply with the principle of equality between the parties, particularly in the context of multi-party arbitrations.

7.4 Appointment mechanism in the absence of party agreement or applicable institutional rules

The French supporting judge (juge d’appui), i.e., the President of the First Instance Court (Tribunal judiciaire) of the seat of the arbitration, or any other appointing authority (judicial or otherwise) designated by the parties, appoints the arbitrator(s), if:

• the parties fail to agree on the appointment of the sole arbitrator;
• a party fails to appoint its co-arbitrator within one month from the other party’s request;
• the co-arbitrators fail to agree on the appointment of a president within one month from their appointment; or
• the parties fail to agree on an appointing mechanism in a multi-party arbitration.

Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, any other dispute relating to the constitution of the arbitral tribunal is resolved by the supporting judge, who has jurisdiction as long as:

• the arbitration takes place in France; or
• the parties have agreed to submit the arbitration to French procedural law; or
• the parties have expressly granted jurisdiction to French courts over disputes relating to the arbitral proceedings; or
• there is a risk of denial of justice for one of the parties.

7.5 Mandatory rules applicable to the replacement process

For French international arbitration, there are no mandatory rules applicable to the replacement process. In practice, absent any agreement of the parties either directly or by reference to the rules of an arbitral institution, the supporting judge will resolve the issue, absent an agreement of the parties on the replacement.

For domestic arbitration, the new arbitrator shall be appointed in accordance with the terms agreed between the parties or, failing that, in accordance with the terms on which the replaced arbitrator was appointed.

7.6 Mandatory disclosure obligations

See Section 7.2 above.

7.7 Grounds for challenge

Arbitrators can be challenged for lack of: (i) independence or impartiality; or (ii) specific features agreed by the parties.

7.8 Mandatory rules governing the challenge of arbitrators

Absent any agreement by the parties to the contrary, parties are required to challenge the arbitrator(s) within one month from the disputed disclosure or discovery of the relevant fact or circumstance before the supporting judge.

7.9 Removal

An arbitrator may be removed by unanimous decision of the parties. Absent a unanimous decision, parties may request the removal within one month from the disputed disclosure or discovery of the relevant fact before the supporting judge.

7.10 Liability and immunity of arbitrators

There is no immunity per se for arbitrators under French law. Arbitrators may not be held liable for the content of their orders or awards (including factual or legal errors, error of judgement, etc.). However, they may be held liable in the event of wilful misconduct amounting to fraud, gross negligence, or denial of justice, or if they do not comply with their disclosure obligations and the award is set aside as a result.

8.1 Interim measures

8.1.1 Overview of interim measures

Until the arbitral tribunal is constituted (but not after), French courts have jurisdiction to order interim relief, including conservatory or provisional measures, if urgency is established by the applicant. Investigative measures may be sought before initiating the arbitration proceedings.

However, at any given time, including after the arbitral tribunal is constituted, state courts have exclusive jurisdiction to order conservatory attachments and judicial securities.

8.1.2 Relevance of availability of emergency arbitrator mechanism

French courts may order interim relief expeditiously (within a few days if need be). Therefore, the emergency arbitrator mechanism could have limited relevance in France in certain circumstances. Moreover, French courts can grant parties ex parte interim relief, which is generally unavailable, or at least less common and therefore more difficult to secure, before ICC emergency arbitrators.

8.2 Taking of evidence

French courts may assist parties with the taking of evidence:

• before the arbitral proceedings are initiated, by ordering investigative or evidentiary measures (which may be requested on an ex parte basis), such as pre-litigation document production orders or appointment of a judicial expert; or
• after the arbitral tribunal is constituted and upon the invitation of the latter, by ordering, subject to penalty, the hearing of a witness or a third party to produce documentary evidence in its possession in aid of arbitration.

8.3 Appointment or challenge of arbitrators

The supporting judge may be required to assist the parties with the appointment or the challenge of an arbitrator, in the absence of an agreement between the parties (see Section 7 above).

8.4 Other available assistance

French arbitration law grants jurisdiction to the supporting judge to assist parties if the time limit to render the arbitral award needs to be extended and the parties fail to agree on the extension or if a party is at risk of a denial of justice.

9.1 Domestic scope of sovereign immunity from jurisdiction

States enjoy jurisdictional immunity, which may be waived. For such waiver to be valid, the French Supreme Court considers that it must be “certain, explicit and unequivocal”.

Nonetheless, waiver by a state of its jurisdictional immunity may occur by conduct, for instance, if the state is the claimant in a legal action or if the state unequivocally participates in legal proceedings without raising a jurisdictional immunity defence. A waiver may also occur by agreement, as is the case when the state has concluded a forum selection or an arbitration agreement. Case law considers that when a state enters into an arbitration agreement, it waives its jurisdictional immunity, not only for the arbitration but also for directly related litigation proceedings.

9.2 Immunity from execution

The general regime of state sovereign and diplomatic enforcement immunities is enshrined in Articles L. 111-1-1 to L. 111-1-3 of the French Code of Civil Enforcement Proceedings (CCEP), as amended by the Sapin II Law of 9 December 2016.

Article L. 111-1-1 of the CCEP provides that prior judicial authorisation is mandatory to carry out any conservatory or final enforcement measures over state-owned assets in France.

Articles L. 111-1-2 and L. 111-1-3 of the CCEP define the test to be met when applying for such judicial authorisation.

Article L. 111-1-2 of the CCEP provides that enforcement or interim measures against a foreign state’s assets may only be authorised by a judge if one of the following conditions is met:

• the state has expressly consented to the enforcement measure;
• the state has reserved or allocated the asset for the enforcement of the claim raised in the proceedings; or
• a judgment or arbitral award has been rendered against the state, and the asset in question is specifically used or intended for use by the state in a manner other than for non-commercial public service purposes, with a connection to the entity subject to the proceedings.

The following categories of assets are considered to be intended for use by a state for non-commercial public service purposes:

• assets, including bank accounts, used or designated for the performance of a state’s diplomatic or consular functions, special missions, roles within international organisations, or activities of its delegations in international bodies or conferences;
• assets with a military purpose or those used or intended for military operations;
• assets forming part of a state’s cultural heritage or archives, provided they are not offered or intended for sale;
• assets included in exhibitions of objects with scientific, cultural, or historical significance, as long as they are not offered or intended for sale; and
• the state’s tax liabilities or social security debts.

Special protections apply to diplomatic assets, including bank accounts, as per Article L. 111-1-3 of the CCEP, which requires an express waiver of immunity by the state to proceed with enforcement.

In domestic arbitration, the guiding principles for the conduct of proceedings (principes directeurs du procès) must be complied with.

In international arbitration, the minimum requirements are compliance with the principles of due process, equality between the parties, celerity and loyalty.

Arbitral proceedings, as well as the resulting arbitral award, are valid notwithstanding a party’s failure to appear, as long as due process is followed (i.e., the defaulting party is properly notified of the existence of the proceedings and put in a position to participate).

Regarding hearings, a hearing on the merits is not mandatory as long as the abovementioned mandatory principles are complied with. Hearings may be held anywhere, in-person or virtually, unless otherwise agreed in the arbitration agreement.

In French international arbitration law, although private, arbitral proceedings are not by default confidential unless the parties agree thereto, or the arbitral tribunal orders otherwise.

Conversely, in domestic arbitration, arbitral proceedings are confidential unless the parties agree otherwise, and subject to applicable legal requirements (e.g., mandatory accounting, tax or financial reporting obligations).

In both domestic and international arbitration, the arbitral tribunal’s deliberations are confidential.

French case law defines arbitral awards as “any decision of the arbitrators that determine, in a final and definitive manner, all or a part of the dispute, be it on the merits, jurisdiction or a procedural matter”.

12.1 Requirements as to content and form

Arbitral awards must be made in writing and signed by all arbitrators, or at least a majority of the arbitral tribunal. In the latter case, refusal to sign the award should be mentioned thereto.

In domestic arbitration, awards are null and void if they do not state any of the following:

• the parties’ full names and address (both for natural and legal persons);
• if applicable, the name of the parties’ counsel or representatives in the arbitral proceedings;
• the names of the arbitrators;
• the date of the award; and
• the place where the award is rendered.

The award shall also succinctly set out the respective claims of the parties and their arguments, and the reasoning on which it is based.

12.2 Time limit

In international arbitration, there is no statutory time limit for rendering an award.

In domestic arbitration, the arbitral tribunal must render the award within six months from its constitution (i.e., when the last or the sole arbitrator accepts its remit) unless another time limit is specified in the arbitration agreement.

The time limit may be extended by agreement of the parties or, absent such agreement, by decision of the supporting judge.

If the award is rendered after the expiry of the fixed time limit, the award may be challenged, unless it is shown that the challenging party took part in the arbitral proceedings after the expiry of the time limit without contention or disapproval.

12.3 Remedies

Arbitrators may, at their discretion and in the absence of limits expressly imposed by the parties, award any remedy that would be available under contract and/or tort law — such as, notably, declaratory relief, damages, injunctive relief, specific performance, penalties or costs and interests — except for remedies or relief that would be contrary to international public policy, such as excessive punitive damages.

13.1 Interpretation and correction of awards

Within three months from the notification of an award, a party may apply to the arbitral tribunal to interpret, correct material errors and omissions, or complete the award. Unless agreed otherwise, the arbitral tribunal must render the corrected award within three months from the application.

13.2 Challenge of an award

It is possible to challenge domestic and international arbitral awards.

In international arbitration, actions to set aside international arbitral award are only available for awards rendered in France. They must be lodged within one (or three) month(s) from the award’s notification before the ICCP-CA, which has exclusive jurisdiction as of 1 June 2025.

In international arbitration, there is no judicial review of the merits of an award, which may only be set aside where:

1. the arbitral tribunal wrongly upheld or declined jurisdiction;
2. the arbitral tribunal was improperly constituted;
3. the arbitral tribunal ruled without complying with the mandate conferred upon it;
4. due process was violated; or
5. recognition or enforcement of the award is contrary to international public policy.

In domestic arbitration, actions to set aside an award must be lodged before the court of appeal of the seat of arbitration within one month from the award’s notification. The fifth ground for annulment is worded differently and provides that an award may be set aside if the award itself is contrary to public policy. Additionally, and only in domestic arbitration, a sixth ground for annulment exists: the award may be set aside if it fails to state the reasons upon which it is based, the date on which it was made, the name(s) or signature(s) of the arbitrator(s) having made the award or if it was not made by majority decision.

In domestic arbitration, if the annulment judge sets aside the award (even partially), it will rule on the merits within the scope of the arbitral tribunal’s mandate, unless the parties have agreed otherwise. The parties may also agree that an appeal of the award is possible.

13.3 Recognition and enforcement proceedings

The application to seek recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award (exequatur) is made on an ex parte basis before the President of the First Instance Civil Court (Tribunal judiciaire) where the award was made. For foreign awards, the Paris court has jurisdiction. There is no statutory time limit for such application.

Exequatur is granted if:

• the applicant establishes the existence of the award, which is done by submitting originals or authenticated copies of the award and the arbitration agreement, along with a French translation if necessary; and 
• the recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award is not manifestly contrary to international public policy (or the award itself is not contrary to public policy in domestic arbitration).

An appeal against the order granting or refusing exequatur is always available for international awards rendered abroad.

When the award is rendered in France, (i) an appeal against the order refusing exequatur is always available and (ii) conversely, an appeal against the order granting exequatur is only available when the parties have expressly waived their right to lodge an action to set aside the arbitral award. However, an action to set aside the arbitral award amounts to appealing the order granting exequatur. The appeal may be lodged within one month from notification of the order, on the same grounds as those applicable for the annulment of international awards rendered in France (see Section 13.2 above).

13.4 Cost of enforcement

The costs to apply for an exequatur in France are nominal. Enforcement costs will vary depending on the nature of the debtor’s assets, the enforcement measures, and the debtor’s endeavours to resist enforcement.

13.5 Enforcement of orders of emergency arbitrators

There is no statutory provision or specific mechanisms under French law regarding the enforcement of orders of emergency arbitrators. Although French courts could decide that an emergency order from the arbitral tribunal shall in fact be characterised as an arbitral award, thereby being eligible for exequatur, French courts would only do so if they considered that the emergency order has ruled on the dispute in a final and definitive manner.

14.1 Process for enforcing New York Convention awards

France applies the New York Convention on the basis of reciprocity. Nonetheless, French arbitration law being more liberal than the New York Convention, the process for enforcing awards (as described in Section 13.3, above) is the same for all international awards, regardless of whether they have been made in France or abroad, in a contracting state or not.

14.2 Grounds for resisting enforcement of New York Convention awards

The grounds for resisting enforcement of foreign New York Convention awards are the same as those for the annulment of international awards rendered in France (see Section 13.2, above), through an appeal against the order granting leave to enforce (see Section 13.3, above).

14.3 Enforcing non-Convention awards

See Section 14.1, above.

15.1 Applicable to counsel

French counsel or counsel based in France are subject to the professional and ethical rules of the national bar association, as well as any rules of their regional bar and the Code of Conduct of European Lawyers. The Paris Bar provides for ethical rules specifically applicable to international arbitration, such as ethical rules in relation to preparation of witnesses or recourse to third-party funding.

15.2 Applicable to arbitrators

As for counsel, arbitrators may be subject to professional and ethical rules if they are members of the national bar association.

16.1 Applicable regulatory requirements

Third-party funding of arbitral proceedings is permitted in France.

The Paris Bar Council has developed ethical rules in this regard, including the following:

• counsel may not directly interact with third-party funders to protect attorney–client privilege;
• counsel may not get paid directly by third-party funders; and
• counsel should encourage parties to disclose to the arbitral tribunal if third-party funders are involved in proceedings, to avoid conflicts of interest.

16.2 Overview of the third-party funding market

Some important third-party funders in France include:

• Profile Investment;
• Fortress Investment Group;
• Burford;
• Omni Bridgeway; and
• IVO Capital Partners.

France is not known for a particular type of arbitration, as arbitrations from a broad range of sectors and industries are seated in France.

There are, however, a number of specialised arbitral institutions, such as the Maritime Arbitration Chamber of Paris, the Chambre Arbitrale Internationale de Paris (initially associated to the grain trading sector) and the French Reinsurance and Insurance Arbitration Centre.

17.1 Types of specialist arbitration

Not applicable.

17.2 Key legal principles

Not applicable.

17.3 Types of claim and defences typically brought in that area

Not applicable.

17.4 Issues and strategic considerations to take note of

Not applicable.

Amongst the recent developments in French arbitration law, two aspects of the control of arbitral awards by French courts must be distinguished because they are the subject of opposing views in French case law. These are particularly visible in the field of investment arbitration. Regarding the scope of control, the trend is to restrict the powers of French courts; however, as far as the depth of control is concerned, the tendency is to extend its powers.

Regarding the scope of the control of jurisdictional decisions, recent case law clarifies a number of elements: 

• First, the control on jurisdiction may concern only the notions of investments and investors (ratione materiae and ratione personae).
• Second, these notions of investments and investors are those being defined or delimited by the treaty provision containing the arbitration agreement, and that defining the scope of the investment treaty, to the exclusion of any other.
• Third, within these two stipulations, certain criteria, including those relating to the legality of the investment or the scope ratione temporis of the treaty, are relevant to the substance and are thus excluded from the jurisdictional control.

As regards the depth of the control, historically, the annulment judge reviewed the arbitral tribunal’s decision on its jurisdiction by seeking all the elements of law or fact, thereby assessing the scope of the arbitration agreement. Traditionally, French courts performed a de novo review of the arbitral tribunal’s decision on its jurisdiction. French courts have recently extended this in-depth level of control to violations of international public policy, especially when allegations of corruption, fraud or money laundering are being made. In such instances, the courts are not bound by the arbitral tribunal’s findings and may consider new arguments as well as new evidence never subjected to the review of the arbitral tribunal. This evolution reflects a movement toward increased judicial review by French courts, both in reviewing (i) the jurisdiction of arbitral tribunals and (ii) potential violations of international public policy.