FRANCE Trends and Developments Contributed by: Gustavo Laborde and Vinko Galiot, Laborde Law
The first major annulment decision of 2026 reaffirmed this approach. In Akhmetov v Russia , the Paris Court annulled the award on jurisdiction based on both rec - ognised grounds for annulment under Article 1520 (2), a result that is rare in French annulment practice. The first ground was a breach of the parties’ agreed appointment procedure; the second was the exist - ence of reasonable doubts as to an arbitrator’s inde - pendence and impartiality. Improper constitution: unilateral withdrawal from party agreement on chair selection process The Paris Court began with the parties’ agreement on the appointment procedure. The parties had agreed in writing to modify the procedure for appointing the presiding arbitrator, but the claimants later declared the agreement lapsed and attempted to withdraw from it unilaterally. The co-arbitrators gave effect to that withdrawal by proceeding with the appointment without respecting the agreed modification. The Court was categorical: the agreement was not “revocable at the initiative of one of the parties”; the claimants could not “unilaterally withdraw their con - sent and declare it lapsed”; and the co-arbitrators could not disregard that agreement. The agreed proce - dure had not been followed: the tribunal was improp - erly constituted and its award had to be annulled. French courts may treat even express treaty require - ments as immune from annulment review. However, they rigorously enforce party agreements regarding the tribunal’s constitution and any departure from these agreements warrants annulment. Reasonable doubts: arbitrator’s law firm taking public stand against a party The award was independently vulnerable under the second limb of the Article 1520 (2) standard: reason - able doubts as to the presiding arbitrator’s independ - ence and impartiality. The Paris Court found him to lack the requisite impartiality because the law firm of which he was a partner issued, only months before the award on jurisdiction, a statement “tak[ing] an unam - biguous position against the Russian Federation (…) concerning the conflict opposing it to Ukraine”, a con - flict that lay “at the heart of the case.” The arbitrator’s professed ignorance of the statement was irrelevant:
as a partner, he was identified with the firm’s public position regardless of any personal involvement in drafting it. Nor did the Paris Court confine itself to the firm’s statement. Although that statement alone had sufficed for the PCA appointing authority to disqualify the pre - siding arbitrator in the arbitration, the Court also relied on evidence post-dating the award on jurisdiction that “appear[ed] all the more likely to give rise to a reason - able doubt in the minds of the parties as to [his] inde - pendence and impartiality.” The additional evidence included two social media expressions of support for posts critical of Russia and its president, including a “like”. The subsequent removal of that “like” rein - forced, rather than dispelled, the appearance that it reflected the arbitrator’s views. A matter of timing: similar appearance of bias, different outcomes Not every manifestation of bias can support annul - ment: only circumstances giving rise to reasonable doubts as to an arbitrator’s independence or impar - tiality prior to the award can lead to annulment. In Akhmetov v Russia , the claimant-appointed arbitra - tor was likewise disqualified from the tribunal because comments he made during the challenge proceedings gave rise to reasonable doubts as to his impartiality. However, because those comments were made after the award under scrutiny and therefore “sa[id] nothing of his state of mind during the proceedings that led to the pronouncement of [the] award”, they justified the removal of the arbitrator, the Paris Court confirmed, but not the award’s annulment. Oschadbank v Russia provides further illustration of this point. In July 2025, the Paris Court dismissed Russia’s challenge to the 2018 final award, holding that the claimant-appointed arbitrator’s amicus curi - ae submission in unrelated enforcement proceedings against Russia, though sharply critical of Russia, had been filed more than five years after the Final Award and therefore shed no light on the arbitrator’s state of mind during the arbitration. A year later, the Paris Court reached the opposite con - clusion in relation to the revision award rendered in
371 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook