French translations needed to enforce arbitral awards in France

The decision issued earlier this month also clarified the standard of breach of international public policy necessary to challenge the requested enforcement of an arbitral award, under article 1514 of the French Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), as well as the high threshold of proof needed to convince the courts to ‘stay’ enforcement – in effect, pause its effect while waiting for the outcome of the decision on the merits of the challenge – under article 1526 of the CPC, to preserve the efficiency of French arbitration law.

A summary of the case

In 2015, Alessi Domenico S.p.A., an Italian manufacturer and distributor of high-end jewellery, entered into a commercial agreement with Amor Jordan Advanced Jewelry Technologies LLC, a Jordanian company entrusted with the marketing and processing of Alessi’s products in North America. The agreement contained an arbitration clause.

Following a series of unpaid invoices, Alessi Domenico initiated ICC arbitration proceedings seated in Paris, which culminated in an award dated 25 June 2024 ordering the Jordanian company to pay various amounts. Seeking enforcement in France, Alessi Domenico filed a request for ‘exequatur’ – official recognition – before the Paris Court of Appeal. Amor Jordan simultaneously brought an action to set aside the award and opposed enforcement, arguing that the French translation of the award had not been filed in due time and that the award was manifestly contrary to international public policy due to post-award evidence of accounting fraud. It also requested a stay of enforcement while waiting for the outcome of the decision on the merits of the challenge.

The translation question

Article 1515 of the CPC provides that a party seeking enforcement must submit the original award or a certified copy, along with a certified French translation if the award is not in French. While this obligation has long been undisputed, the case at hand offers a new perspective on when the translation has to be produced by, particularly where enforcement proceedings are adversarial rather than undertaken on an ‘ex parte’ basis – which is where only one side has the chance to make representations.

In this case, the Paris court held that when the request for enforcement is made in the context of ongoing litigation – such as in parallel with an action where a party is seeking for an arbitral award to be set-aside – it is sufficient that the translation be produced in time to allow the opposing party to examine and respond to it effectively. Here, the translation was filed more than three weeks before the hearing, and Amor Jordan did not challenge its accuracy. The court therefore found that the procedural rights of Amor Jordan had been respected.

This reasoning is consistent with the case law of the French supreme court, the Cour de cassation, which has repeatedly underscored that enforcement is granted to the award itself, not to its translation. The translation serves merely to authenticate the identity and content of the award, not to substitute for its legal authority. This approach illustrates the French courts’ consistent effort to avoid a formalistic reading of procedural requirements in international arbitration, and it is aligned with the direction and spirit of the recently proposed reform.

The proposed reform of French arbitration law aims to simplify enforcement proceedings by allowing parties to submit free translations of arbitral awards as a default. Under the current regime, the translation must be certified by a translator registered with the court. The reform proposes to reverse this logic: uncertified translations would be admissible in principle, and a certified version would be required only if the accuracy of the initial translation is contested or if the judge raises doubts as to its reliability, especially in the case of ex parte proceedings. This evolution would streamline enforcement while preserving safeguards essential to procedural fairness.

The public policy issue

Amor Jordan attempted to invoke a post-award audit report as evidence that Alessi Domenico had engaged in fraudulent accounting practices, and that, consequently, the award was issued in breach of French international public policy.

The court firmly rejected this argument, noting that the report had been issued after the award and dealt with a period and facts not submitted to the arbitral tribunal. It emphasised that the review of alleged international public policy breaches at the stage of granting the enforcement order, must be confined to the manifest content of the award itself. It considered that permitting external evidence that has arisen after an arbitral tribunal has issued an award to retroactively taint an award would run counter to the finality and legal certainty that underpin requests for enforcement orders.

The court’s approach is not merely doctrinal; it is practical. It shields requests for enforcement orders from becoming a surrogate forum for re-litigation. It also reaffirms that, at the request for enforcement orders, French courts will not substitute their judgment for that of the arbitral tribunal on the merits, nor allow loosely framed fraud allegations to paralyse enforcement without incontrovertible proof. An in-depth review of the compatibility of enforcement with international public policy will only take place when the court reviews the arguments raised in set aside proceedings or, in case of an ex parte enforcement order, at the stage of the appeal.

Obtaining a stay of an enforcement order

The Paris court’s decision also confirms the high threshold that must be met for the enforcement of an award to be suspended while the outcome of a set aside proceeding is awaited – an issue we have explored before.

The court reiterated that the burden of proof lies squarely with the party seeking the suspension of the provisional enforcement of the award, and that suspension should only happen in exceptional cases. Mere allegations of harm or self-produced internal documents are not enough to satisfy the evidence requirements. The applicant must provide concrete, accountant-backed financial documentation establishing the existence of a serious and concrete risk to its economic viability or rights.

In the case at hand, Amor Jordan’s submissions failed to meet this burden. The court found the evidence speculative and lacking in specificity, which can only be provided by objective, independently verifiable data – such as balance sheets, cash flow projections, and auditor reports – rather than unsupported assertions of prejudice.

This evidentiary rigor is a reaffirmation that provisional enforcement remains the rule, and that suspension is the exception.