How France's arbitration reform will affect international arbitration users

The update follows extensive debate with the arbitration community and the publication of the Ancel-Clay Report. While the reforms, which will enter into force on 1 January 2027, do not fundamentally reshape the existing framework, they introduce several targeted changes that international arbitration users should be aware of.

Paris occupies a prominent position in that market. According to a recent FTI Consulting study, arbitration-related activities generated approximately €774 million in Paris in 2025, underscoring both the economic significance of the sector and the strategic importance attached to preserving the city's attractiveness as a seat of arbitration.

While most changes reflect France's continuing and pragmatic effort to maintain the competitiveness of its arbitration framework, they also raise important questions, notably regarding the increasingly prominent role of the ‘juge d'appui’.

Strengthening arbitral tribunals’ powers to order and liquidate financial penalties

One of the most notable innovations is the express recognition of the power of arbitral tribunals not only to order financial penalties (‘astreintes’), but also to liquidate them.

While French courts had long accepted that arbitrators could impose penalty payments designed to compel compliance with their decisions, whether tribunals could subsequently liquidate those penalties remained debated. The Decree resolves that uncertainty by expressly recognising such power.

The practical significance of the reform is likely to arise principally in connection with interim and conservatory measures. A tribunal may now accompany such measures with an astreinte and subsequently liquidate it through an award if the relevant party fails to comply. This provides a clearer enforcement mechanism for orders designed to preserve assets, evidence and the status quo during the proceedings. The reform may also encourage parties to seek astreintes more frequently in support of interim relief. 

Making interim measures more effective

One of the challenges for international arbitration users has been the absence in France of an effective mechanism to ensure compliance with interim and conservatory measures. In practice, parties often relied on the expectation that arbitral orders would be voluntarily complied with, sometimes referred to as the “magic of arbitration”. The decree seeks to address this gap by strengthening the available enforcement mechanisms.

Under the new framework, interim and conservatory measures ordered by an arbitral tribunal may be granted enforceability by the juge d'appui where the relevant party holds assets or funds in France. The reform is clearly intended to enhance the effectiveness of arbitral relief and, more broadly, reinforce the attractiveness of France as a seat.

At the same time, it increases the degree of judicial involvement in support proceedings, with the risk of parallel litigation affecting the efficiency of the arbitration. Further, decisions of the juge d'appui remain subject to appeal and potential review before the Cour de cassation. As a result, disputes concerning the enforceability of interim measures may continue independently of the arbitration and potentially extend beyond the issuance of the final award itself.

Continuing to specialise arbitration-related proceedings before the Paris Court of Appeal

The decree introduces a dedicated procedural framework for international arbitration cases before the Paris Court of Appeal. Many of the new provisions codify practices already developed by the court’s International Chamber. Foreign language exhibits may now be submitted without translation unless the court orders otherwise. Parties, witnesses, experts and counsel may also participate in proceedings in a foreign language under specified conditions.

Particular attention should be paid to the new confidentiality provisions, which allow the court to adapt both the reasoning of its decision and the manner of its publication to protect the confidentiality of the arbitration. While this is a welcome development, public hearings may still expose commercially sensitive information, trade secrets or proprietary know-how, despite the limited role of courts in annulment and enforcement proceedings.

The decree nevertheless refers to the general French civil procedural rules allowing debates to take place behind closed doors in circumstances where publicity could infringe privacy interests, where all parties request it, or where public proceedings would disrupt the proper administration of justice. An important question will therefore be whether these powers will be used sufficiently flexibly in arbitration-related proceedings to preserve the confidentiality expectations of arbitration users. However, specific provisions could have been included in the Decree to avoid this uncertainty.  

Limiting powers of judges to suspend enforcement of awards because of set-aside proceedings

The reform also narrows certain powers previously exercised by French judges in annulment and enforcement proceedings. Under the previous regime, as an exception to the general rule that awards remain enforceable despite set-aside proceedings, the court could, in limited circumstances, either suspend enforcement of an award or adjust the conditions under which enforcement would proceed. For example, it could order sums to be deposited in escrow pending resolution of the challenge. The new framework removes the possibility of adjustment and limits the court’s powers to suspension alone.

The practical consequences of this amendment will become clearer through future case law. What is immediately apparent, however, is that judges have been deprived of a tool that offered a degree of procedural flexibility.

More notably, the reform does not directly address an issue frequently raised by arbitration users: the duration of post-award proceedings in France. Procedural time limits continue to be triggered through formal service of the award, typically by a bailiff. International service requirements and applicable extensions for foreign parties may significantly lengthen the timetable. As a result, annulment proceedings can sometimes outlast the arbitration itself.

Although French awards remain immediately enforceable in principle, this issue should nevertheless have been addressed because it may be relevant where enforcement is sought in jurisdictions that are reluctant to recognise or enforce an award before all proceedings at the seat have concluded.

Adapting proceedings to digitalised awards

The decree continues the gradual digitalisation of French arbitration.

Awards may now be issued electronically, provided they bear qualified electronic signature, and the rules governing recognition and enforcement have been adapted accordingly to accommodate both electronic awards and reliable digital copies. This reflects the increasing dematerialisation of arbitral proceedings.

However, French courts do not yet possess fully developed infrastructure for the digital management and preservation of arbitral awards. Awards are not currently integrated into the electronic court registry, and no mechanism exists for electronically affixing an enforcement formula.