It is common for parties to high-value, French law-governed cross-border transactions to submit disputes to international arbitration, frequently under the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) Rules. The principal attractions are:

• procedural flexibility;
• the ability to select arbitrators;
• potential efficiency and extensive electronic case management; and
• the arbitration-friendly approach of French law to court support, review and enforcement.

Confidentiality is also available where it is provided by the arbitration agreement, applicable institutional rules or an order of the arbitral tribunal; it is not a general default rule for international arbitration under French law (see 9.1 Extent of Confidentiality).

The key industries in France for international arbitration proceedings are construction, energy, industry and digital technologies. Disputes most often relate to breach of contract or abrupt termination of established commercial relationships (rupture brutale des relations commerciales établies).

The key arbitration institution in France is the ICC’s International Court of Arbitration. The 2026 ICC Rules entered into force on 1 June 2026 and govern arbitrations commenced on or after that date, unless the parties have agreed to apply an earlier version of the Rules.

Apart from the ICC, France has a number of other arbitration institutions, such as:

• the French Association for Arbitration (Association Française d’Arbitrage);
• the Regional Chamber of Arbitration (Chambre Régionale d’Arbitrage);
• the International Arbitration Chamber of Paris (Chambre Arbitrale Internationale de Paris, CAIP);
• the Paris Centre of Mediation and Arbitration (Centre de Médiation et d’Arbitrage de Paris, CMAP); and
• the European Court of Arbitration located in Strasbourg.

France also has a number of specialised arbitration institutions – for example:

• the French Arbitration Centre for Reinsurance and Insurance (Centre Français d’Arbitrage de Réassurance et d’Assurance, CEFAREA);
• the Paris Maritime Arbitration Chamber (La Chambre Arbitrale Maritime de Paris); and
• the Arbitration Chamber for Mass Retail (Chambre Arbitrale de la grande distribution, CAGD).

The Arbitration Chamber for Mass Retail was established on 18 June 2024 and entered into an exclusive partnership agreement with the CAIP.

French law provides for a supporting judge whose role is to facilitate the proper conduct of arbitral proceedings and resolve certain procedural difficulties, notably those relating to the constitution of the arbitral tribunal. In international arbitration, the supporting judge is, unless otherwise provided, the President of the Paris Judicial Court in the circumstances listed in Article 1505 of the French Civil Procedure Code.

The international commercial chambers of the Paris Commercial Court and the Paris Court of Appeal, created in 2018, specialise in international business disputes. Their procedural protocols allow the parties, counsel, witnesses and experts to use English at hearings and permit documentary evidence in English without translation. The proceedings remain governed by French procedural law, and procedural acts and judgments remain in French, although an English translation of the judgment may be made available.

Furthermore, Article 25 of Law No 2024-537 of 13 June 2024 introduced Article L311-16-1 of the French Judicial Organisation Code, in force since 1 June 2025. It gives the Paris Court of Appeal national jurisdiction over set-aside applications concerning international awards rendered in France and appeals against decisions on the recognition or exequatur of international awards. Article 1519 of the French Civil Procedure Code was amended accordingly with effect from 1 September 2025.

With effect from 1 January 2027, Decree No 2026-741 of 6 August 2026 will introduce specific procedural rules for international arbitration proceedings before the Court of Appeal through new Articles 1527-1 to 1527-5 of the French Civil Procedure Code. In particular, Article 1527-3 will allow parties to file documents in foreign languages without translation unless the court orders otherwise. Article 1527-4 will permit parties, witnesses, experts and counsel to be authorised to speak a foreign language before the Court, where necessary with the assistance of an interpreter. The Court of Appeal will also be able to adapt the reasoning and publication of its decisions to take account of the confidentiality requirements of the arbitration at the request of the parties or any of them, pursuant to Article 1527-5.

French arbitration law is mainly codified in Articles 1442 to 1527 of the French Civil Procedure Code and Articles 2059 to 2061 of the French Civil Code. The French Civil Procedure Code distinguishes between international arbitration (Articles 1504 to 1527 of the French Civil Procedure Code) and domestic arbitration (Articles 1442 to 1503 of the French Civil Procedure Code; see also Articles 2059 to 2061 of the French Civil Code). Certain provisions of the French Civil Procedure Code governing domestic arbitration also apply to international arbitration, unless otherwise agreed by the parties (Article 1506 of the French Civil Procedure Code).

Arbitration is international when it concerns interests of international trade (Article 1504 of the French Civil Procedure Code). An arbitration is therefore deemed international when the underlying economic transaction is not economically confined to a single country, irrespective of the parties’ nationality, the applicable law or the seat of arbitration (Cour de cassation, First Civil Chamber, 26 January 2011, No 09-10.198; Paris Court of Appeal, 7 February 2023, No 20/08604; Paris Court of Appeal, 10 July 2025, No 24/16717).

With effect from 1 January 2027, Decree No 2026-741 of 6 August 2026 will amend Article 1504 of the French Civil Procedure Code by replacing the reference to “interests of international trade” with “international economic interests”. The practical scope of this new wording will need to be clarified by future case law.

French courts – in particular the Cour de cassation and the Paris Court of Appeal – also play a key role in interpreting French arbitration law.

French arbitration law is not based on the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration. It largely predates the UNCITRAL Model Law and differs from it in several respects, including as follows.

• The criteria for determining whether an arbitration is international: while Article 1(3) of the UNCITRAL Model Law adopts an approach based on the parties’ places of business or certain connecting factors, French law adopts an economic approach centred on the cross-border movement of funds, services or assets (see above).
• The method to be followed by the arbitral tribunal where the parties do not choose the substantive law applicable to their dispute: French law does not require the application of conflict-of-law rules (Article 1511 of the French Civil Procedure Code), while Article 28 of the UNCITRAL Model Law does.

• The grounds for refusing recognition and enforcement of an award: unlike the UNCITRAL Model Law (Article 36 (1)(a)(v)), French law does not treat the setting-aside of an award by the courts at the seat as an autonomous ground for refusing recognition or enforcement (see 12.2 Enforcement Procedure). Recognition may nevertheless be refused on one of the grounds listed in Article 1520 of the French Civil Procedure Code.

A broad reform of French arbitration law is also under consideration. A working group appointed by the Ministry of Justice published its report on 26 March 2025. Its proposal includes the creation of a dedicated Arbitration Code and the consolidation and clarification of rules that are currently spread across several legislative instruments. This project seeks to consolidate and clarify the legal framework applicable to both domestic and international arbitration, which is currently dispersed across various legislative instruments.

The draft Code aims to enhance accessibility, coherence and legal certainty. Key proposed changes include the codification of recent case law, closer alignment of the rules governing domestic and international arbitration, and a more user-friendly structure designed to assist practitioners and promote efficiency. The project also contemplates the formal recognition of certain principles established by case law, such as the autonomy of the arbitration agreement and the “competence-competence” principle. Some proposals would also make substantive changes and have generated considerable debate. It has not yet been adopted.

Following publication of the working group’s report in March 2025, on 12 December 2025 the Ministry of Justice published a draft decree constituting the first of three planned stages of the reform. This draft decree was released for public consultation from December 2025 to January 2026, after which Decree No 2026-741 of 6 August 2026 on various measures to clarify and modernise arbitration procedure was adopted. The decree was published in the French Official Journal on 7 August 2026.

The Decree will enter into force on 1 January 2027, with transitional rules determining its application according to the date of the arbitration agreement, the date of the constitution of the arbitral tribunal or the date of the award, depending on the provision concerned.

It constitutes the first of the three planned stages of the broader reform and amends Book IV of the French Code of Civil Procedure. It notably clarifies and modernises several aspects of arbitration procedure, including the competence-competence principle, the powers of the supporting judge, and the definition and digitalisation of arbitral awards.

The Decree does not, however, constitute the broader overhaul contemplated by the working group’s report. In particular, it does not establish the proposed Arbitration Code. A number of issues remain for the subsequent stages of the reform.

In July 2026, the Ministry of Justice also announced that a further decree would be published in the second phase of the reform.

In international arbitration, there are no specific legal requirements for a valid arbitration agreement to be enforceable under French law (Article 1507 of the French Civil Procedure Code). By contrast, in domestic arbitration, an arbitration agreement must be in writing to be valid (Article 1443 of the French Civil Procedure Code).

Under French law, the scope of matters that can be referred to arbitration has steadily expanded over the last 30 years.

French law takes a broad approach to arbitrability. Disputes concerning rights of which the parties may freely dispose are generally arbitrable, subject to limited rules of non-arbitrability and subsequent review for compliance with international public policy (Articles 2059 and 2060 of the French Civil Code). Article 2060 excludes disputes relating to personal status and capacity, divorce and legal separation, disputes involving public authorities and public institutions and, more generally, matters concerning public policy, subject to qualifications recognised by legislation and case law.

The reference to public policy does not mean that every dispute involving mandatory rules is non-arbitrable. In many such fields, an arbitral tribunal may determine the parties’ private-law rights, while the award remains subject to judicial review for compliance with international public policy.

Core examples of non-arbitrable matters include criminal prosecution and disputes between the tax authorities and a taxpayer concerning the assessment of tax liability. Disputes involving competition, intellectual property, transport or insolvency rules may nevertheless be arbitrable, although an arbitral tribunal cannot exercise powers reserved to public authorities, such as imposing public fines.

At the recognition, enforcement or set-aside stage, French courts may review whether the result of the award complies with international public policy.

Arbitration agreements are generally upheld by French courts. In international arbitration, French courts assess the existence, validity and scope of the arbitration agreement by reference to the parties’ common intention, subject to mandatory rules of French law and international public policy, without applying a national conflict-of-law rule to determine a governing law for the arbitration agreement (Cour de cassation, First Civil Chamber, 20 December 1993, No 91-16.828, Dalico; Cour de cassation, First Civil Chamber, 28 September 2022, No 20-20.260).

French law recognises the independence of arbitration agreements in both domestic and international arbitration (Article 1447 of the French Civil Procedure Code for domestic arbitration, which applies to international arbitration unless otherwise agreed by the parties). Consequently, an arbitration clause may remain valid even if the contract in which it is contained is invalid. Under the French substantive-law approach to international arbitration agreements, the clause is not necessarily governed by the law applicable to the main contract.

In principle, where an arbitration clause is imprecise as to the parties’ intention, French courts may apply the doctrine of effet utile (“useful effect”) to interpret the clause in a manner that gives it effect. However, this doctrine has its limits.

In a notable illustration of these principles, the Paris Court of Appeal set aside a final award rendered against Malaysia in the long-running Sulu heirs dispute, holding that an arbitration clause designating the British Consul General in Brunei as the appointing authority had become inapplicable following the disappearance of that diplomatic function, and that this defect in the arbitration agreement could not be cured by reference to the effet utile doctrine (Paris Court of Appeal, 9 December 2025, No 22/04007).

In domestic arbitration, Article 1450 of the French Civil Procedure Code provides that only a natural person with full capacity to exercise their rights may act as an arbitrator.

In international arbitration, Article 1450 does not apply. Party autonomy is nevertheless constrained by the principle of equality in the constitution of the arbitral tribunal and by the requirements of independence and impartiality (Cour de cassation, First Civil Chamber, 7 January 1992, No 89-18.708; Paris Court of Appeal, 3 July 2012, No 11/01974; Paris Court of Appeal, 14 December 2021, No 19/12417).

Article 1508 provides that the arbitration agreement may, directly or by reference to arbitration rules or procedural rules, designate the arbitrator or arbitrators or provide for the terms and conditions of their appointment.

While French law does not require arbitrators to have any specific qualifications or belong to any particular profession, the parties may, in the arbitration agreement, require the arbitrator to meet certain qualifications or conditions with regard to their profession, nationality or languages.

Nevertheless, it is worth noting that the exercise of certain professional activities is incompatible with the function of arbitrator. Separate statutory and ethical rules may restrict or condition the ability of serving judges, civil servants, parliamentarians or commissaires de justice to accept an arbitral appointment. These are status-specific rules rather than general restrictions imposed by French arbitration law.

Where the parties are unable to agree on the choice of arbitrator(s) or on the terms and conditions of their appointment(s), Article 1452 of the French Civil Procedure Code provides for a default procedure whereby:

• where there is a sole arbitrator, if the parties are unable to agree on the choice of arbitrator, the arbitrator shall be appointed by the person responsible for organising the arbitration or, failing that, by the supporting judge; or
• where the arbitral tribunal is composed of three arbitrators, each party appoints one arbitrator, and the two arbitrators thus appointed appoint the third – if one party fails to appoint an arbitrator within one month of receipt of the other party’s request to do so, or if the two arbitrators fail to agree on the appointment of the third arbitrator within one month of acceptance of their appointment, the person responsible for organising the arbitration or, failing this, the supporting judge, makes the appointment.

This default procedure also applies to multiparty arbitrations. Article 1453 of the French Civil Procedure Code provides that, where a dispute involves more than two parties and they are unable to agree on the constitution of the arbitral tribunal, the person responsible for organising the arbitration or, failing that, the supporting judge, appoints the arbitrator(s).

The supporting judge can intervene in the selection of arbitrators when there is a dispute related to the constitution of the arbitral tribunal (Articles 1452 to 1454 of the French Civil Procedure Code), the challenge or removal of arbitrators (Articles 1456 and 1458), or their abstention, resignation or impediment (Article 1457 of the French Civil Procedure Code). Thus, the supporting judge has only a subsidiary role.

The jurisdiction of the supporting judge in international arbitration is limited to the following situations (Article 1505 of the French Civil Procedure Code):

• the seat of arbitration is in France;
• the parties have agreed that French procedural law applies to the arbitration;
• the parties have expressly given jurisdiction to French courts over disputes related to the arbitration proceedings; or
• one of the parties is at risk of a denial of justice.

Article 1505 of the French Civil Procedure Code provides that, unless otherwise agreed by the parties, the supporting judge is the President of the Tribunal judiciaire of Paris.

The supporting judge may be seized by a party, the arbitral tribunal or one of its members. The application is lodged by writ of summons, and the judge rules under the expedited procedure on the merits (Article 1460 of the French Civil Procedure Code). The judgment is not open to appeal, except where the judge refuses to make an appointment for one of the reasons listed in Article 1455, namely because the arbitration agreement is manifestly void or manifestly inapplicable.

Pursuant to Article 1458 of the French Civil Procedure Code, an arbitrator can only be removed with the unanimous consent of the parties. However, where the parties are unable to agree on the removal of an arbitrator, the dispute is settled by the arbitral institution or, in its absence, by the supporting judge, who must be seised within one month of the disclosure or discovery of the disputed fact (Article 1456 of the French Civil Procedure Code).

Article 1456 further provides that an arbitrator can be challenged on the ground of a lack of independence or impartiality (see 4.5 Arbitrator Requirements).

French arbitration law states that arbitrators must be independent and impartial, and requires them to disclose any circumstances likely to affect their independence or impartiality (Article 1456 of the French Civil Procedure Code). The requirement of independence and impartiality as set out in Article 1456 has been defined by case law as follows.

• An arbitrator’s independence is assessed objectively, by reference to precise and verifiable circumstances external to the arbitrator that may affect their freedom of judgment and give rise to reasonable doubts in the minds of the parties, including personal, professional or economic links with a party or, in appropriate circumstances, an interested third party (Cour de cassation, First Civil Chamber, 21 January 2026, No 24-16.719).
• An arbitrator’s impartiality presupposes the absence of prejudices or biases likely to affect their judgment, which may result from multiple factors such as the arbitrator’s nationality, social, cultural or legal environment (Paris Court of Appeal, 23 April 2024, No 22/20058; Paris Court of Appeal, 25 November 2025, No 23/01617; Paris Court of Appeal, 4 May 2021, No 18/14593).

An arbitrator’s lack of independence or impartiality may result in the award being set aside on the ground that the arbitral tribunal was improperly constituted and, in appropriate cases, for conflict with international public policy (Article 1520(2) and (5) of the French Civil Procedure Code).

Moreover, before accepting their assignment, the arbitrator must disclose any circumstances likely to affect their independence or impartiality (Article 1456(2) of the French Civil Procedure Code). This obligation lasts throughout the arbitration proceedings. Accordingly, the arbitrator must disclose without any delay any such circumstances arising after acceptance of the assignment.

The scope of the disclosure obligation has been clarified by case law, which holds that an arbitrator must reveal all circumstances likely to give rise to reasonable doubts in the minds of the parties as to their independence.

In a further clarification of the scope of the disclosure obligation, the Cour de cassation has held that an arbitrator’s duty extends only to circumstances involving an entity actually implicated in the dispute subject to arbitration. The mere mention of a company, not a party to the arbitration, as an “other concerned party” in a case information document does not, by itself, evidence such implication (Cour de cassation, First Civil Chamber, 7 May 2025, No 21-14.162).

This obligation of disclosure applies not only to relations between the arbitrator and the parties but also to the relations between the arbitrator and the parties’ lawyers or their law firms, whenever the facts considered are likely to affect, in the minds of the parties, the arbitrator’s independence and impartiality.

Moreover, the duty of arbitrators to disclose, and to provide information to enable the parties to exercise their right to challenge, must be assessed considering the notoriety of the situation criticised, its connection with the dispute and its impact on the arbitrator’s judgement (Paris Court of Appeal, 3 October 2023, No 22/06903; Paris Court of Appeal, 25 February 2020, No 19/07575; Paris Court of Appeal, 22 February 2022, No 20/08929).

The main arbitration institutions likewise require arbitrators to be independent and impartial, and impose continuing disclosure duties (Article 12 of the 2026 ICC Rules; Article 18 of the 2025 CMAP Arbitration Rules). The IBA Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest in International Arbitration were revised and approved by the IBA Council in May 2024. 

A party that becomes aware of a potentially disqualifying circumstance during the arbitration must raise it in due time. Failure to do so may constitute a waiver under Article 1466 of the French Civil Procedure Code (Paris Court of Appeal, 20 May 2025, No 24/08190), including where the relevant circumstance arose or became known after the tribunal was constituted (Cour de cassation, First Civil Chamber, 11 February 2026, No 24-13.744).

Like most national legal systems, French law recognises the principle of competence-competence in both domestic and international arbitration, which is deemed to have both a positive and a negative effect.

Positively, the principle allows the arbitral tribunal to rule on its own jurisdiction (Article 1465 of the French Civil Procedure Code, applicable to international arbitration unless otherwise agreed by the parties). This principle is widely recognised by the French courts.

The negative effect requires a state court seised of a dispute covered by an arbitration agreement to decline jurisdiction unless the arbitral tribunal has not yet been seised and the agreement is manifestly void or manifestly inapplicable (Article 1448(1) of the French Civil Procedure Code). The threshold is deliberately narrow, and the rule applies irrespective of the seat of arbitration.

However, a state court may not decline jurisdiction of its own motion (Article 1448, paragraph 2 of the French Civil Procedure Code, applicable to international arbitration unless otherwise agreed by the parties). One of the parties must raise the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal.

Article 1448 will be amended in two respects by Decree No 2026-741 of 6 August 2026. First, whether the arbitral tribunal has already been seised will be assessed at the date on which the state court itself is seised. Second, the parties may depart from the negative effect of the principle of competence-competence by an express and unequivocal stipulation.

It should also be noted that Brussels I bis Regulation No 1215/2012 on Jurisdiction and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters does not apply to arbitration.

In accordance with the principle of competence-competence, French courts give priority to the arbitral tribunal to rule on its own jurisdiction (see 5.3 Timing of Challenge).

The parties may not challenge the arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction before a state court until the arbitral tribunal has issued an award on its jurisdiction. The arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction may then be reviewed at the following stages:

• if the arbitral tribunal renders a partial award on its jurisdiction, that award may be challenged before the French courts – if the partial award confirms the arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction, the challenge should not stay the arbitration proceedings; or
• if the arbitral tribunal renders a final award on the merits and on its jurisdiction, the court will review the jurisdiction issue at the stage of setting aside or enforcing the award.

Under French law, the state court (the supporting judge and the judge hearing set-aside proceedings) exercises full review over the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal – without, however, reviewing the merits of the dispute. The judge hearing set-aside proceedings reviews the arbitral tribunal’s decision on its own jurisdiction, examining all elements of law or fact relevant to assessing the scope of the arbitration agreement and drawing the consequences for compliance with the mission entrusted to the arbitrators (Cour de cassation, First Civil Chamber, 6 October 2010, No 08-20.563, Abela; First Civil Chamber, 12 February 2025, No 21-22.978).

The question of admissibility (eg, breach of a multi-tier arbitration clause) is not an issue of jurisdiction but a matter of admissibility, and does not fall within the grounds for setting aside an award listed in Article 1520 of the French Civil Procedure Code (Paris Court of Appeal, 25 May 2021, No 18/27648).

Where a party invokes an arbitration agreement before a French court, the court must give priority to the arbitral tribunal unless the agreement is manifestly void or manifestly inapplicable (see 5.1 Challenges to Jurisdiction). 

In principle, an arbitration agreement is binding only on the parties to it.

In international arbitration, French case law may extend an arbitration agreement to a non-signatory that was directly involved in the performance of the contract and the resulting dispute, where the objective circumstances demonstrate consent to the arbitration clause (Cour de cassation, First Civil Chamber, 27 March 2007, No 04-20.842, ABS).

Membership of a corporate group is not sufficient by itself. In Dow Chemical, extension was accepted in light of the relevant group companies’ role in the conclusion, performance or termination of the contractual relationship (Paris Court of Appeal, 21 October 1983, Dow Chemical).

An arbitration agreement may be transmitted with the rights or contractual position to which it relates. Under French case law, a successor asserting contractual rights may be bound by the associated arbitration agreement even without having separately expressed consent to that clause (Cour de cassation, First Civil Chamber, 8 February 2000, No 95-14.330; Cour de cassation, First Civil Chamber, 7 November 2012, No 11-25.891).

Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, the arbitral tribunal may order any protective or provisional measure it deems appropriate (Article 1468 of the French Civil Procedure Code). Such measures may maintain or restore the status quo, preserve assets or evidence, or facilitate enforcement of the award. They bind only the parties to the arbitration. State courts retain exclusive power to order conservatory attachments and judicial security measures.

The arbitral tribunal may attach a penalty payment to an interim measure. It does not, however, have coercive powers against third parties, and not every interim decision qualifies as an arbitral award capable of exequatur. Thus, the parties must seek enforcement of interim measures before the national courts (see 6.2 Role of Courts).

From 1 January 2027, the new Article 1468-1 of the French Civil Procedure Code will expressly empower the arbitral tribunal, for as long as it remains seised, to itself quantify the amount of a penalty payment that it has ordered, by way of an arbitral award.

Before the constitution of the arbitral tribunal, the parties may apply to the French courts for interim measures without waiving the arbitration agreement (Article 1449 of the French Civil Procedure Code). The President of the Judicial Court or the President of the Commercial Court – ruling in summary proceedings – may order the following.

• Investigative measures aimed at obtaining evidence (including on an ex parte basis), provided that the applicant satisfies certain conditions including proportionality of the measure and the existence of a legitimate motive (Article 145 of the French Civil Procedure Code).
• In urgent cases:
1. interim measures that do not raise any serious challenges or that are justified by the existence of a dispute (Articles 834 and 872 of the French Civil Procedure Code);
2. protective measures to prevent imminent damage or put an end to a manifestly unlawful disturbance (Articles 835 and 873 of the French Civil Procedure Code); and
3. in certain cases, an interim payment or the performance of an obligation (Articles 835 and 873 of the French Civil Procedure Code).

Interim measures ordered by French courts are normally immediately enforceable, and an appeal does not automatically stay enforcement. These interim measures are available if French courts have territorial jurisdiction, regardless of whether the arbitration agreement provides for a seat in France or abroad.

Once constituted, the arbitral tribunal has in principle exclusive jurisdiction to order interim measures (Article 1468 of the French Civil Procedure Code; see 6.1 Types of Relief). However, the parties may seek assistance from the courts in relation to interim measures that cannot be ordered by the arbitral tribunal, or the enforcement of interim measures ordered by the arbitral tribunal.

In this respect, Decree No 2026-741 of 6 August 2026 amends Article 1468 to allow any party to apply to the supporting judge to confer provisional enforceability on a provisional or conservatory measure ordered by the arbitral tribunal. The supporting judge grants the application unless enforcement would seriously prejudice the rights of a party or the measure would be contrary to public policy (international public policy in international arbitration – see new Article 1506 in fine).

Even when the arbitral tribunal is constituted, French courts have exclusive jurisdiction to order provisional seizures and judicial mortgages and, upon authorisation of the arbitral tribunal, to order a third party to produce identified documents (Article 1469 of the French Civil Procedure Code).

It should be noted that the new Article 1469 will transfer jurisdiction over the production of documents held by third parties from the President of the Judicial Court to the supporting judge. The new Article 1505(5) will also confer jurisdiction on the supporting judge in international arbitration where the relevant document is held by a third party residing in France.

French courts’ assistance is also needed when a party does not comply with an interim measure ordered by the arbitral tribunal.

Emergency arbitration provisions contained in the rules of arbitral institutions are not incompatible with French law. For example, under the ICC Arbitration Rules (2026) (Article 31 of the Rules and Appendix IV):

• an emergency arbitrator may be appointed before the constitution of the arbitral tribunal;
• the emergency arbitrator’s decision is binding on the parties but is not enforceable as an arbitral award; and
• an application for emergency arbitrator proceedings does not prevent a party from applying to national courts for any other urgent or conservatory measures.

Under the revised ICC Arbitration Rules (2026), parties may apply for ex parte measures, and the emergency arbitrator proceedings may be initiated against:

• parties that are signatories to the arbitration agreement upon which the application is based;
• their successors; or
• any party for which the President is satisfied, based on information in the application, that an arbitration agreement binding such party may exist.

French law does not contain any specific provisions on security for costs. However, security for costs may be ordered by arbitral tribunals or the French courts under the conditions set out previously for interim measures (see 6.1 Types of Relief and 6.2 Role of Courts).

Pursuant to Article 1509 of the French Civil Procedure Code, the parties are free to agree on the procedural rules applicable to their international arbitration proceedings. This is typically done by the parties incorporating a set of institutional rules that govern the arbitration procedure into the arbitration agreement.

In the absence of an agreement between the parties, the arbitral tribunal determines the applicable procedural rules (Article 1509 of the French Civil Procedure Code).

French law does not prescribe mandatory procedural stages. Certain fundamental principles must nevertheless be observed irrespective of the procedural rules chosen by the parties. The tribunal must ensure equal treatment, respect due process and the adversarial principle, and conduct the proceedings diligently and in good faith (Articles 1464 and 1510 of the French Civil Procedure Code).

Arbitrators are required to be independent and impartial (see 4.5 Arbitrator Requirements). They have a general duty to conduct the arbitration proceedings fairly, efficiently and, where possible, expeditiously, and to decide the dispute by rendering an award.

French law grants the parties broad autonomy with respect to the power of the arbitrators, notably concerning the conduct of the arbitration proceedings. Nevertheless, the French Civil Procedure Code sets forth key powers of arbitrators in international arbitration, unless otherwise agreed by the parties, including the following:

• the ability for arbitrators, according to the principle of competence-competence, to decide on their own jurisdiction, including any objections with respect to the existence or validity of the arbitration agreement (Article 1465 of the French Civil Procedure Code);

• the ability to order the production of documents by a party (Article 1467 of the French Civil Procedure Code – see 8.3 Powers of Compulsion); and

• the ability to order interim relief that the arbitral tribunal deems appropriate (Article 1468 of the French Civil Procedure Code – see 6.1 Types of Relief).

There are no particular qualifications or other requirements for legal representatives appearing in an arbitration seated in France. In domestic arbitration, the parties may appear without representation or may be represented by a person of their choice (Articles 18, 19 and 1464 of the French Civil Procedure Code). Although the French Civil Procedure Code contains no equivalent express provision for international arbitration, the same principle is generally accepted. 

French law gives the parties and arbitrators broad discretion over the collection and submission of evidence. Article 1509 of the French Civil Procedure Code empowers the arbitral tribunal to define the applicable procedural rules unless otherwise agreed by the parties. A tribunal seated in France may therefore organise document production, including targeted requests, but such production is ordinarily narrower than US-style discovery.

In practice, parties and arbitral tribunals seated in France frequently refer to the 2020 IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration, which are a balanced combination of the common law and civil law systems.

Document requests are often organised in a Redfern Schedule recording the requested category, the requesting party’s justification, the opposing party’s objections and the tribunal’s decision. A party may also apply to French courts, with the authorisation of the arbitral tribunal, to compel a third party to produce identified documents (Article 1469 of the French Civil Procedure Code).

When witness statements are submitted, requests to cross-examine the witness are usually granted. Pursuant to Article 1467 of the French Civil Procedure Code, the arbitral tribunal may call upon any person to provide testimony, but witnesses are not sworn in.

As noted in 8.1 Collection and Submission of Evidence, the arbitral tribunal is free to choose the rules of evidence, unless otherwise agreed by the parties. Irrespective of the rules of evidence chosen, the arbitral tribunal must ensure equal treatment of the parties and uphold the adversarial principle (Article 1510 of the French Civil Procedure Code).

Moreover, in domestic arbitration, the fundamental principles governing French court proceedings apply (Article 1464 of the French Civil Procedure Code). As a result, the discretion of the parties and the tribunal in defining evidentiary rules is more limited. For example, each party bears the burden of proving the facts it alleges (Article 9 of the French Civil Procedure Code).

The arbitral tribunal may order a party to produce documents and set a penalty if a party does not comply with an injunction (Article 1467 of the French Civil Procedure Code). The arbitral tribunal may also draw adverse inferences from a failure to comply with a document production order. Upon authorisation of the arbitral tribunal, parties may apply to the French courts to compel a third party to produce documents (Article 1469 of the French Civil Procedure Code).

The arbitral tribunal does not itself have coercive power to compel a non-party witness to appear before it. It may nevertheless draw appropriate inferences from a party’s failure to procure the attendance of a witness within that party’s control, subject to due process.

Subject to legal disclosure obligations and unless the parties agree otherwise, domestic arbitration proceedings are confidential (Article 1464 of the French Civil Procedure Code). The precise scope of confidentiality depends on the circumstances, including any need to protect or enforce a party’s rights.

International arbitration proceedings are not confidential by default under French law. Confidentiality may arise from the arbitration agreement, applicable institutional rules or an order of the arbitral tribunal. In both domestic and international arbitration, the arbitral tribunal’s deliberations are secret.

From 1 January 2027, the new Article 1478 of the French Civil Procedure Code will codify the definition of an arbitral award developed by case law (Cour de cassation, First Civil Chamber, 12 October 2011, No 09-72.439) and provide that an award is an act that finally determines, in whole or in part, the dispute as to jurisdiction, a procedural issue capable of terminating the proceedings, or the merits.

The arbitral award must set forth the parties’ claims and arguments and state reasons (Articles 1482 and 1506 of the French Civil Procedure Code). In domestic arbitration, the absence of reasons is expressly sanctioned. In international arbitration, by contrast, Article 1483 does not make an absence of reasons a standalone ground for setting aside the award. In exceptional circumstances, however, the defect may engage Article 1520, notably where it shows that the tribunal failed to perform its mandate or where recognition or enforcement would conflict with international public policy.

The award must also indicate the identity of the parties and their counsel, the arbitrators, as well as the date and the place where it was rendered (Article 1481 of the French Civil Procedure Code).

The award is made by a majority of the arbitrators. If there is no majority, the President of the tribunal decides alone. If one or more arbitrators refuses to sign, that refusal is recorded in the award (Article 1513 of the French Civil Procedure Code).

The new Articles 1480-1 and 1480-2 of the French Civil Procedure Code will also expressly recognise arbitral awards drawn up in digital form, subject to the use of a qualified electronic signature.

French law does not provide specific rules governing or restricting the types of remedies that an arbitral tribunal may award. Thus, all types of remedies are available provided that they are not contrary to international public policy.

Punitive damages are not per se contrary to French international public policy, provided that the amount awarded is not manifestly disproportionate to the harm suffered and the breach at issue (Cour de cassation, First Civil Chamber, 1 December 2010, No 09-13.303; Cour de cassation, First Civil Chamber, 12 January 2022, No 20-16.189; Paris Court of Appeal, 9 January 2024, No 21/14563).

The arbitral tribunal may award interest and allocate legal and arbitration costs, subject to the applicable substantive law, the procedural rules chosen by the parties and any institutional rules. French arbitration law does not impose a specific prohibition on either form of relief.

In international arbitration, an award is not subject to appeal. International arbitration awards rendered in France may be set aside unless the parties have waived their right to bring such proceedings by special agreement (Articles 1518 and 1522 of the French Civil Procedure Code). However, international arbitration awards rendered abroad cannot be challenged by way of set-aside proceedings in France.

The grounds for setting aside an award are exhaustively listed in Article 1520, and include that:

• the arbitral tribunal wrongly upheld or declined jurisdiction;
• the arbitral tribunal was improperly constituted;
• the arbitral tribunal ruled without complying with the mission entrusted to it;
• the adversarial principle was violated; or
• recognition or enforcement of the arbitral award is contrary to international public policy.

A set-aside application against an international award rendered in France must be brought before the Paris Court of Appeal within one month of notification of the award; notification is by service unless the parties agree otherwise (Article 1519 of the French Civil Procedure Code). A domestic set-aside application is brought before the Court of Appeal within whose jurisdiction the award was rendered (Article 1494). General procedural rules may extend time limits for parties located abroad.

According to the Paris Court of Appeal, under Article 1518 of the French Civil Procedure Code, which opens the right to bring set-aside proceedings against awards rendered in France in international arbitration matters, only genuine arbitral awards may be the subject of such proceedings – namely acts of the arbitrators that finally resolve, in whole or in part, the dispute submitted to them, whether on the merits, on jurisdiction or on a procedural issue leading them to bring the proceedings to an end (Paris Court of Appeal, 14 April 2026, RG n° 25/00795).

Under French law, the parties may not derogate from the provisions governing arbitration appeals (Cour de cassation, First Civil Chamber, 13 March 2007, No 04-10.970).

The parties cannot create a merits appeal against an international award where French law provides only a set-aside remedy. A contractual clause purporting to create such an appeal is therefore ineffective (Cour de cassation, First Civil Chamber, 13 March 2007, No 04-10.970).

However, Article 1522 of the French Civil Procedure Code expressly allows the parties, by special agreement, to waive the right to seek set-aside at any time. They may still appeal the exequatur order on the grounds listed in Article 1520.

International arbitral awards are not subject to review on the merits by French courts.

The standard of judicial review in set-aside proceedings has recently been reinforced by the Cour de cassation, which stated that, within the limits of a ground listed in Article 1520 of the French Civil Procedure Code, the reviewing court may investigate all relevant matters of law and fact (Cour de cassation, First Civil Chamber, 7 September 2022, No 20-22.118).

In particular, review of compliance with international public policy is not confined to the evidence placed before the arbitrators, and the reviewing court is not bound by the tribunal’s factual findings or legal characterisations (Cour de cassation, First Civil Chamber, 23 March 2022, No 17-17.981).

This intensified review does not amount to a general de novo review of the merits. It remains confined to the issues relevant to one of the exhaustively listed grounds in Article 1520, notably jurisdiction and international public policy.

The New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards 1958 (the “New York Convention”) was signed by France on 25 November 1958, ratified on 26 June 1959 and entered into force on 24 September 1959. Upon ratification, France made one reservation concerning reciprocity: “France declares that it will apply the Convention on the basis of reciprocity, to the recognition and enforcement of awards made only in the territory of another contracting State”.

Pursuant to Article VII(1) of the New York Convention, a party may rely on the more favourable provisions of French law governing recognition and enforcement. French courts therefore frequently apply the French Civil Procedure Code rather than the Convention itself.

France is also a party to other international treaties containing provisions relating to the enforcement of awards, such as:

• the European Convention on International Commercial Arbitration of 21 April 1961; and
• the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States of 18 March 1965 (which established the International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID)).

Articles 1514 to 1517 of the French Civil Procedure Code govern recognition and enforcement of foreign awards and international awards. Forced execution requires an exequatur order from the Judicial Court in whose jurisdiction an award rendered in France was made, or from the Paris Judicial Court for an award rendered abroad. The application is ex parte (Article 1516).

The party seeking exequatur must submit an ex parte application to the competent court and prove:

• the existence of the award by producing the original award and the arbitration agreement or duly certified copies thereof (together with a translation of these documents if they were not drafted in French); and
• that such enforcement is not manifestly contrary to French international public policy.

At the initial ex parte stage, recognition or enforcement is refused only if it is manifestly contrary to French international public policy (Articles 1514 and 1515 of the French Civil Procedure Code). French courts define French international public policy as values and principles that cannot be disregarded, even in an international context (Paris Court of Appeal, 14 December 2021, No 19/12417).

In practice, French international public policy encompasses both substantive rules (principle of good faith in the performance of agreements, regulations governing foreign investment in France, certain principles of insolvency proceedings such as stay of individual proceedings against the debtor, international economic sanctions, prohibition of corruption and money laundering, etc) and procedural aspects (such as fair trial, equality of the parties, rights of the defence, fraud, etc).

French courts may grant recognition or exequatur even where an award has been set aside by the courts at the seat, because foreign annulment is not itself one of the grounds listed in Article 1520 (Cour de cassation, First Civil Chamber, 23 March 1994, No 92-15.137; Cour de cassation, First Civil Chamber, 29 June 2007, No 05-18.053; Paris Court of Appeal, 1 April 2014, No 12/15479). Ongoing set-aside proceedings at the seat do not automatically bar recognition or exequatur in France.

That initial screening test must be distinguished from appellate review. On appeal against a decision concerning recognition or exequatur of an award rendered abroad, the Court of Appeal may refuse recognition or enforcement on any of the five grounds listed in Article 1520 (Article 1525).

Where the exequatur decision concerns a foreign award, it may be appealed within one month of service of the decision (Article 1525 of the French Civil Procedure Code). By contrast, where the exequatur decision concerns an international arbitration award rendered in France, a distinction is made according to whether the decision grants or refuses exequatur, as follows:

• a decision refusing exequatur of an international arbitration award rendered in France may be appealed (Article 1523 of the French Civil Procedure Code); and
• a decision granting exequatur may not be appealed except in the cases provided for in Article 1520 of the French Civil Procedure Code (lack of jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal, irregular constitution, non-compliance with the arbitral tribunal’s terms of reference, breach of the adversarial principle, conflict with international public policy) (Articles 1524 and 1522(2) of the French Civil Procedure Code).

At the enforcement stage, sovereign states and their emanations benefit from immunity against enforcement of arbitral awards under the conditions set forth by the “Sapin 2” law of 9 December 2016, as follows.

• First, conservatory or enforcement measures against property belonging to a foreign State require prior authorisation by a judge in an ex parte order (Article L111-1-1 of the Code of Civil Procedures).
• Second, authorisation requires one of the following:
1. the State’s express consent;
2. earmarking of the property for satisfaction of the claim; or
3. where a judgment or award has been rendered against the State, property specifically used or intended for use otherwise than for non-commercial public-service purposes and connected with the entity against which the proceedings were brought (Article L111-1-2 of the Code of Civil Enforcement Procedures).
• Finally, an effective waiver concerning property used or intended for use by a diplomatic mission or consular post must be express and specific (Article L111-1-3 of the Code of Civil Enforcement Procedures).

French courts generally adopt an arbitration-friendly approach to recognition and enforcement. At the initial ex parte stage, the test is manifest conflict with international public policy. On appeal concerning an award rendered abroad, however, refusal may be based on any of the five grounds in Article 1520 (see 12.2 Enforcement Procedure).

French law does not provide for group arbitration. French law does, however, provide for class actions (actions de groupe): Article 16 of Act No 2025-391 of 30 April 2025 established a single, generally applicable regime, transposing Directive (EU) 2020/1828. Class actions are brought before specially designated tribunaux judiciaires (Article L211-15 of the French Judicial Organisation Code) and are not, as such, arbitrable. Nevertheless, this legal regime is recent and has not yet been widely applied.

The French Civil Procedure Code does, however, refer to multiparty arbitration (Article 1453 of the French Civil Procedure Code).

French law does not prescribe a single binding ethical code for arbitrators. Statutory requirements include independence, impartiality and disclosure (Article 1456 of the French Civil Procedure Code), supplemented where applicable by institutional rules and professional duties. Parties and arbitrators may also refer to non-binding instruments such as the IBA Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest in International Arbitration. French lawyers remain subject to their statutory and national professional-conduct rules.

French arbitration law contains no general statutory regime specifically governing third-party funding.

On 21 February 2017, the Paris Bar Council adopted a resolution confirming that French law does not prohibit third-party funding of international arbitration and recalling that counsel for a funded party owes professional duties to the client, not to the funder.

Counsel must preserve independence, professional secrecy and loyalty to the funded client when dealing with a funder. Any disclosure of case information must comply with the client’s instructions and counsel’s professional duties.

Disclosure of the funding arrangement may also be required to identify conflicts of interest. Article 12(6) of the 2026 ICC Rules requires prompt disclosure of the existence and identity of a non-party funder with an economic interest in the outcome of the arbitration.

French arbitration law contains no general mechanism allowing an arbitral tribunal to consolidate separate proceedings without party consent or an incorporated set of arbitration rules. Consolidation is therefore primarily contractual or institutional.

The rules of an arbitral institution may contain provisions relating to the consolidation of arbitral proceedings. For example, Article 11 of the ICC Rules of Arbitration (2026) provides that the court may, at the request of a party, consolidate two or more pending arbitrations into a single arbitration, where: 

• the parties have agreed to consolidation;
• all the claims in the arbitrations are made under the same arbitration agreement(s); or
• the claims in the arbitrations are not made under the same arbitration agreement(s), but the arbitrations are between the same parties, the disputes in the arbitrations arise in connection with the same legal relationship and the court finds the arbitration agreements to be compatible.

Article 15 of the 2025 CMAP Arbitration Rules contains a separate consolidation mechanism with similar, but not identical, criteria.

An arbitral award does not have res judicata effect with respect to third parties, except where they are bound by the arbitration agreement under certain circumstances (see 5.6 Jurisdiction Over Third Parties). Nonetheless, an award may be invoked against third parties, and third parties may rely on the award (Cour de cassation, Commercial Chamber, 23 January 2007, No 05-19.523; Paris Court of Appeal, 6 February 2014, No 12/14466).