Challenging an international arbitration award: what remedies are available?

By Yasmine EDDAM4 April 2025

The arbitration award has been made, putting an end, in principle, to the dispute between the parties. But what should you do if you believe that the award is seriously flawed or violates fundamental principles? Is this really the end of the procedural road? Although arbitration is aimed at finality and efficiency, French law nevertheless recognises the possibility of challenging an international arbitration award, but within a very strict framework and on limited grounds. It is never a question of retrying the case on its merits. This article sets out the various remedies available in France against international arbitration awards, distinguishing between awards made in France and those made abroad.

The principle: limited appeals and no substantive review

The first rule to understand is fundamental: when it comes to international arbitration, there is no such thing as a "rule of law". no appeal allowing a review on the merits of the award by a state judge. Article 1518 of the French Code of Civil Procedure is explicit on this point. A French court hearing an appeal will not check whether the arbitrator has correctly ruled on the facts or on the law, whether he has correctly interpreted the contract or assessed the evidence. The aim is to respect the parties' desire to escape the jurisdiction of the courts for the substance of their case.

Existing remedies are aimed solely at controlling the regularity of the arbitration procedure or the compatibility of the award with certain essential principles. These remedies are listed exhaustively by law, and the parties may not create others by contract (this is a matter of public policy).

In addition, an essential principle, codified in article 1466 of the Code of Civil Procedure (applicable internationally via article 1506), is that of the "right to sue". waiver of right to rely on irregularities. A party who becomes aware of an irregularity during the arbitration proceedings (for example, a doubt as to the independence of an arbitrator, a violation of the adversarial process) but who refrains, without a legitimate reason, from raising it before the arbitral tribunal in due time, is deemed to have waived it. It will no longer be able to raise this complaint before the national court when appealing against the award. Procedural fairness requires that action be taken without waiting for the final decision.

Awards rendered in France: action for annulment (Art. 1520)

When an international arbitration award has been made in Francethe only possible recourse is the action for annulment. It must be brought before the Court of Appeal in whose jurisdiction the award was made.

This recourse is only available for five limited grounds Article 1520 of the Code of Civil Procedure:

The arbitral tribunal wrongly declared itself competent or incompetent. This ground allows the court to fully review the arbitrator's jurisdiction. He will re-examine the existence, validity and scope of the arbitration agreement in fact and in law, as well as the arbitrability of the dispute (i.e. whether the dispute could legally be submitted to arbitration). If the judge finds that the arbitrator was not competent (or that he declared himself incompetent when he was), he will set aside the award.
The arbitral tribunal was improperly constituted. This refers to defects affecting the actual composition of the tribunal. This may involve a breach of the appointment rules agreed by the parties or provided for in the applicable arbitration rules. It may also involve a breach of the requirements of an arbitrator's independence or impartiality, in particular if the arbitrator has not complied with his or her obligation to disclose and the fact not disclosed was of such a nature as to create a legitimate doubt. Compliance with the principle of equality of the parties in the appointment of arbitrators also falls within the scope of this review.
The arbitral tribunal ruled without complying with the terms of reference entrusted to it. This ground sanctions the arbitrator's failure to respect the limits of his mission, as defined by the arbitration agreement and the parties' requests. It covers :
- L'ultra petita The referee has awarded more than was requested, or has ruled on points not submitted to him for arbitration.
- Non-compliance with the procedural rules agreed by the parties (if such non-compliance is substantial).
- Failure to comply with any mandatory deadline set by the parties for rendering the award. However, this ground does not not to criticise the arbitrator's assessment of the facts or application of the law, or any "distortion" of the documents or clauses of the contract. Failure to rule (infra petita) is not, in principle, a case for annulment either, but may give rise to an application for a supplementary award (see below).
The principle of contradiction has not been respected. This case sanctions serious breaches of the rights of the defence. One of the parties must not have been able to put forward its arguments or to discuss its opponent's exhibits and arguments under satisfactory conditions. Equality of arms between the parties must also have been respected. Examples may include the refusal to hear an essential witness without justification, the taking into account of documents that were not communicated, or excessively short deadlines that prevented a useful response.
Recognition or enforcement of the award is contrary to international public policy. This is the ultimate check on the compatibility of the award with the fundamental values of the French legal system in its international relations. It is not a question of domestic public policy, but of a hard core of essential principles (substantive public policy: prohibition of corruption and illicit trafficking; procedural public policy: respect for the fundamental rights of the defence, impartiality, etc.). Here, the French courts exercise an in-depth control: they examine the solution adopted by the award and may verify the facts to ensure that it does not flagrantly violate these fundamental principles. Competition law disputes, for example, are often examined from this angle.

If one of these five grounds is upheld by the Court of Appeal, the award is set aside (in whole or in part if the defect affects only a divisible part of the decision). It is then considered never to have existed in the French legal system.

Waiver of the action for annulment (Art. 1522)

An important innovation of the 2011 reform is the possibility for the parties, by means of a special conventionof expressly waive the right to bring an action for annulment against an award made in France in an international matter (article 1522 of the Code of Civil Procedure). This waiver must be specific to that recourse; a general clause waiving all means of recourse (as is sometimes found in arbitration rules) is not sufficient. Unlike other jurisdictions (Switzerland, Belgium), French law does not require the parties to have no connection with France in order to waive the right to bring an action.

This waiver has a limited scope. It prevents the award from being set aside in France, but it does does not to contest theexequatur order if enforcement is sought in France. In this case, the party may appeal against the exequatur order on the same five grounds as for annulment (article 1522, paragraph 2). The effect is different: if the appeal is successful, the award will not be enforceable in France, but it will not be set aside and will retain its legal validity, potentially being enforceable in other countries.

Foreign judgments: appeals against decisions on enforceability (Art. 1525)

When an international arbitration award has been made abroadIn France, it cannot be the subject of a direct action for annulment before the French courts. The only possible review in France occurs if a party applies for recognition or enforcement. The appeal is then directed not against the award itself, but against the French judge's decision (the President of the Paris TGI) who ruled on this application for recognition or enforcement (article 1525).

Two scenarios:

Appeal against order refusing enforcement : If the judge has refused the exequatur (which can only happen if the recognition/enforcement is clearly contrary to international public policy - Article 1514), the party seeking enforcement may appeal against this refusal to the Paris Court of Appeal (Article 1523). The Court will examine whether the refusal was justified.
Appeal against order granting exequatur : If the judge has granted exequatur, the party against whom enforcement is sought may appeal against this order to the Paris Court of Appeal. The Court will then consider whether enforcement should have been refused, on the basis of exclusively on the five grounds provided for in Article 1520 (the same as for the annulment of an award made in France).

It is crucial to reiterate the liberal position of French law: the fact that an award has been set aside in its country of origin is not an obstacle to the enforcement of the award. not in itself a ground for refusing enforcement in France (case law Hilmarton and Putrabali). The French courts exercise their own control with regard to the grounds provided for by French law.

Procedure and effects of appeals

Whether it is an action for annulment or an appeal against the exequatur order, proceedings are brought before the Court of Appeal competent. Visit deadline to act is toone month from notification (generally by bailiff) of the award (for annulment) or of the decision on the exequatur (for appeal), this period being extended for parties residing abroad. The notification must mention the time limit and the procedure for lodging an appeal in order to start the time limit running.

Major effect: as we have already seen (article 6), the exercise of these remedies has no impact on the rights of the parties. no suspensive effect (article 1526). The award remains enforceable if the exequatur has been obtained, unless the First President of the Court of Appeal or the Conseiller de la mise en état orders that enforcement be halted or modified where there is a risk of serious prejudice to one of the parties.

The judgment given by the Court of Appeal on the action for annulment or on the appeal against the exequatur order is subject to an appeal. appeal to the Supreme Courtlimited to questions of law.

Other "corrective" remedies

In addition to the main remedies aimed at destroying or preventing the enforcement of the award, there are other more specific mechanisms:

Interpretation, Rectification of a material error, Supplement for omission to rule : Provided for by article 1485 (applicable via 1506 unless otherwise agreed), they make it possible to return to the court of first instance. same arbitral tribunal (if it can be convened) to clarify an obscure point, correct a simple typo or obtain a ruling on a point that may have been forgotten. The request must be made within 3 months of notification of the award.
Third party : This recourse, which allows a third party whose rights have been infringed by a decision to challenge it, is not open against an international arbitration award under French law. Third parties must avail themselves of the remedies available under ordinary law if their interests are affected by the enforcement of the award.
Application for review : Provided for in article 1502 (applicable via 1506 unless otherwise agreed), this exceptional recourse allows the seller to request the arbitration tribunal (if it can be convened) to retract its award if one of the very strict conditions of Article 595 of the Code of Civil Procedure is met (for example, discovery of fraud committed during the arbitration proceedings, production of decisive documents withheld by the opposing party, etc.). It is only available if the award is no longer subject to another form of recourse (annulment or appeal).

In short, while international arbitration awards enjoy a high degree of stability, French law provides targeted remedies to sanction the most serious procedural irregularities or violations of international public policy, while preserving the essential principle of no review on the merits.

Challenging an arbitration award is subject to strict rules and short deadlines. Whether you wish to initiate an appeal or defend an award, our firm can offer you its expertise to assess your chances and conduct the proceedings.

Sources

Code of Civil Procedure (in particular articles 593-603, 1466, 1485, 1502, 1506, 1514, 1518-1527)
New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (1958) (in particular Article V)
Key case law (listed by way of illustration: Cass. Civ. 1ère, 23 March 1994, HilmartonCass. Civ. 1ère, June 29, 2007, Putrabali)