Key Takeaways:
- In March 2025, the French Ministry of Justice released the report of its Working Group on modernizing French arbitration law.1 This is the first major reform proposal since 2011.
- France is a leading seat of international arbitration. The Ministry of Justice created this Working Group, composed of a broad range of arbitration experts, to reinforce an already prominent and flexible body of arbitration law and increase its efficiency and competitiveness in the global arbitration market.
- The Working Group has made 40 concrete proposals, including (i) the creation of a dedicated, autonomous arbitration code presenting in one place all arbitration-related provisions; (ii) the adoption of guiding principles allowing users, including users located outside France, to grasp the core rules and values of French arbitration law, such as speed and priority of the arbitral tribunal to decide its own jurisdiction; and (iii) the enhancement of the powers of the supporting judge (juge d'appui), a judge responsible for assisting arbitration proceedings.
- The French government has not yet identified which proposals it will adopt. The Working Group's report will form basis for the government's upcoming work in that area.
Introduction
France is one of the most favored seats for international arbitrations and has a rich tradition of supporting and facilitating alternative dispute settlements. French arbitration law is internationally recognized as prominent. To maintain and reinforce its competitiveness and efficiency in the global arbitration market, the French Ministry of Justice appointed a Working Group in November 2024 to draft a comprehensive report and proposals to modernize French arbitration law. This is the first major reform proposal since 2011 and reflects a proactive effort on the part of France to innovate and modernize this already strong body of law.
The group of experts, co-chaired by French Supreme Court Justice François Ancel and Professor Thomas Clay, has published a comprehensive report proposing reforms to French arbitration law. The report, released in March 2025, presents 40 detailed proposals and a draft code that covers both domestic and international arbitration. The Working Group includes a wide range of arbitration specialists. Few countries have the innovative spirit to invite judges, arbitrators, practitioners, and academics to work together on proposed practical updates to arbitration law. The Working Group also consulted with other members of the arbitration community.
The report outlines a reform project to address the evolving needs of the arbitration community and further enhance the efficiency and attractiveness of French arbitration law. It proposes the creation of a dedicated, arbitration code. The code sets forth a common legal regime aligned on French international arbitration law, with a few specific provisions addressing domestic arbitration. The intention behind the proposed reform is to make French arbitration law more accessible and attractive for arbitrations seated in France and abroad.
This article provides a summary of the main features and objectives of the report. It is structured into three sections, corresponding to the three main axes of the reform: structural reform, substantive reform, and promotion of arbitration law and training of its key players. The French government has not yet identified which proposals it will adopt. Regardless of the number, however, these proposals will serve as a basis for the government's upcoming work.
Structural Reform: Proposal Towards an Autonomous French Arbitration Law?
A fundamental aspect of the proposed reform is the creation of a separate and autonomous, arbitration code, which would regroup and harmonize all legislative and regulatory provisions relating to arbitration, which are currently spread across various codes and laws. Although the Civil Code and Code of Civil Procedure constitute the core of French arbitration law, approximately twenty codes and laws address the subject of arbitration. The proposed arbitration code is designed to (i) present in one place a comprehensive, user-friendly body of arbitration law; (ii) show that French arbitration is an autonomous area of practice; and (iii) reinforce that France is an attractive place of arbitration. The code is designed to be modest in size and focused on arbitration-related topics.
The proposed code would consist of four chapters, covering (i) guiding principles of arbitration law and articles relating to the arbitration process, (ii) challenges in court to arbitral awards, (iii) specific provisions addressing family, labor, and consumer arbitrations, (iv) and miscellaneous provisions. This code is designed to enhance the clarity, transparency, and accessibility of French arbitration law and reinforce the notion of arbitration as a self-sufficient and distinct mode of dispute resolution and governed by its own principles and rules.
French arbitration law has historically distinguished between international and domestic arbitrations. Notwithstanding this dual legal regime, there has been a convergence, and a common core of rules is applicable to both international and domestic arbitrations. The Working Group recommends going a step further and creating a common legal regime aligned on international arbitration law, with a few specific rules applicable to domestic arbitration proceedings.
The Working Group also recommends updating the definition of international arbitration both to reflect developments in the case law and to recognize that the prior reference to "commerce" in the definition of international arbitration was too narrow and ignored that many international arbitrations do not involve commerce, but investor-state disputes, disputes between professionals, real estate disputes, and other disputes that do not implicate commerce. Accordingly, the preliminary article of the proposed arbitration code states that an arbitration is international "when the dispute involves international economic interests."
The report also recommends that all challenges to international arbitral awards be decided by the Paris courts, which will reinforce Paris as a formidable place of arbitration. The purpose is to promote a specialized and experienced judiciary, familiar with the features of international arbitration and which will provide consistent and predictable interpretations of the French arbitration law.
Guiding Principles
The Working Group also recommends setting forth guiding principles of French arbitration law at the beginning of the arbitration code. That will allow users, especially users located outside France, to immediately grasp the core rules and values of French arbitration law.
In the proposed code, ten guiding principles help define the core characteristics of French arbitration law: (i) autonomy and separability of the arbitration agreement; (ii) priority of the arbitral tribunal to determine its own jurisdiction; (iii) speed and loyalty; (iv) the parties' right to select the governing law, and the arbitral tribunal's ability to take usages into account; (v) the parties' right to grant powers of an amiable compositeur to the arbitral tribunal; (vi) the definition of an arbitral award and its authority; (vii) the ability of French courts to recognize awards set aside at the place of arbitration; (viii) the prohibition against a party invoking its domestic laws to circumvent an international arbitration; (ix) the common intention of the parties; and (x) confidentiality.
The Working Group suggests steps to enhance confidentiality in proceedings before the International Chamber of the Paris Court of Appeal. It acknowledges that provisions regarding the protection of trade secrets are not sufficient or well-suited to protect confidentiality in arbitration-related proceedings before the Court of Appeal. This further demonstrates that France has always been and remains a leader in international arbitration and a trail blazer in that area of law.
In addition, the Working Group recognizes as guiding principles certain principles of contract interpretation, such as effet utile, and other key norms, such as due process, the independence and impartiality of arbitrators, proportionality and efficiency, and the obligation to treat parties equally.
The Working Group expresses the view that independence and impartiality should not only be identified as a guiding principle of French arbitration law, but that an arbitrator should disclose all facts and circumstances which, from the perspective of the parties, could affect his independence and impartiality, regardless of whether these facts and circumstances are already notorious or a matter of public record. The report expresses the view that parties should not be required to constantly investigate.
To prevent the denial of justice, the Working Group recommends increasing the powers of the supporting judge (juge d'appui) who becomes a key player in support to arbitration proceedings. The supporting judge was established in 2011 and is a relatively young feature of French arbitration law. This proposed reform is designed to expand its powers. On proportionality and efficiency, the Working Group highlights that the arbitration process should be commensurate with the complexity and magnitude of the parties' dispute.
The ability of arbitrators to take "usages" into account is not limited to trade usages, but includes usages in industries, such as mining, insurance, or the maritime industry. The arbitral tribunal will be best suited to determine which usages, if any, are relevant in any given case.
Substantive Reform: Towards an Even More Flexible, Protective, and Efficient French Arbitration Law?
The Working Group seeks to introduce changes and improvements to the substantive rules governing arbitration in order to make it even more flexible, protective, and efficient. The reform covers a broad range of aspects of the arbitration process and can be divided into three categories, corresponding to the different objectives pursued by the Working Group.
Rules to Make Arbitration Even More Flexible
The reform seeks to promote arbitration as an even more flexible and adaptable mode of dispute resolution, which can respond to the diverse and changing needs of the parties. It proposes reducing the formalities of a valid arbitration agreement. A key proposal to promote the speedy resolution of disputes is to provide that the time to challenge an arbitration award will run from its communication or delivery of the award by the arbitration organization, not from service of the award according to domestic law and international conventions. This proposal is consistent with certain other arbitration laws focusing on the delivery of the award. Such a change should have the effect of shortening the time to challenge an award because service of an award abroad according to international conventions may take several months.
The Working Group also recommends abolishing the requirement, in domestic arbitrations, that arbitration clauses be in writing and replacing it by a general principle of proof by any means. This would align the French arbitration law with its contract law. The reform also proposes to simplify the rules on the signature of awards. Electronic arbitral awards would be valid and enforceable provided they comply with certain conditions of authenticity and integrity.
These proposals are designed to use modern and efficient means of communication and transmission.
Rules to Make Arbitration More Protective
The report seeks to enhance protection of the parties' rights and interests in arbitration. It proposes introducing or reinforcing guarantees and safeguards while maintaining a flexibility toward international awards. For instance, the reform would explicitly require that, notwithstanding developments in AI, a tribunal seated in France must consist of natural persons with full legal capacity.
The Working Group also suggests clarifying the contractual relationships between the arbitrators, the parties, and the arbitration institutions. When an arbitration is administered by an arbitration organization, a contractual relationship exists between the arbitrators and the parties. Contractual relationships also exist (i) between the parties and the arbitration organization, and (ii) between the arbitration organization and the arbitrators. These contractual relationships have existed for decades, but have not been the subject of deep analyses.
The report also recommends specific provisions for the protection of vulnerable parties. For instance, it proposes codifying the existing case law on the arbitrability of family, labor, and consumer disputes, and recommends the Chancellerie to consider in greater depth the possibility of adding special protections for family law disputes. Further, it advises on reinforcing the powers of the supporting judge (juge d'appui) to help the arbitration process move forward when a party faces financial hardship. The juge d'appui might schedule a hearing to explore potential concrete solutions allowing the arbitration to proceed, such as (i) whether the parties would consent to pursue the arbitration before a single arbitrator instead of a three-member tribunal; or (ii) whether the parties would consent to transfer the arbitration to a different arbitration organization charging lower rates.
Rules to Make Arbitration Even More Efficient
The reform aims to increase the efficiency and the speed of arbitral proceedings, both during the arbitration and after the award is rendered.
The report suggests enhancing the integrity of the arbitration process and procedural fairness, recognizing the importance of preventing dilatory tactics and of ensuring that the arbitration is conducted efficiently. The Working Group proposes the adoption of a code article that would promote procedural good faith and provide that a party that knowingly and without legitimate reasons refrained from raising an irregularity, ground, or argument during the arbitration proceedings is deemed to have waived them. That proposed article seeks to abrogate a prior French Supreme Court decision in that area.
It recommends expanding the powers of the supporting judge (juge d'appui) to protect the integrity of the arbitration process. In addition to the enhanced powers of the juge d'appui described above, the report recommends three measures. (i) Entrusting the juge d'appui with the authority to order a third party to produce a document in aid of arbitration. Such authority already exists under the Code of Civil Procedure; the Working Group recommends vesting that power in the juge d'appui. (ii) Granting the juge d'appui the authority to enforce interim or provisional measures decided by the arbitral tribunal. This is a new authority, which would also apply to decisions of an emergency arbitrator, and certain interim decisions of arbitral tribunals on costs. (iii) Granting the juge d'appui the authority to reconstitute a new tribunal under certain circumstances.
The Working Group, however, elected not to recommend a provision that would have brought finality to a party's efforts to remove an arbitrator. The Working Group considered the possibility of including an article requiring a party that unsuccessfully challenged an arbitrator before the arbitral institution to promptly assert that challenge before the juge d'appui. Failure to do so would result in a waiver of the ability to assert that challenge in future set aside proceedings. In the end, the Working Group decided against this proposal on the grounds that it would likely lead to systematic challenges before the juge d'appui and further delays to the arbitration process.
The Working Group proposes establishing an autonomous procedural regime before the Court of Appeal in order to create a specific set of rules tailored to arbitration proceedings, distinct from the general civil procedure code. The report builds on the protocol that already applies, when both sides consent, to proceedings before the International Chamber of the Paris Court of Appeal. This protocol was established in 2018 and makes it possible, among other things, to make oral arguments and statements in English in set aside proceedings (and certain other proceedings) before the Paris Court of Appeal. The rationale behind the report is to enhance even more the efficiency and clarity of arbitration-related appeals by reducing reliance on the broader civil procedure code, which can be complex and subject to frequent reforms that may not align with arbitration needs.
The report also discusses the effects that an annulment of a partial award in an arbitration seated in France should have on the annulment of subsequent awards in the same arbitration. To promote efficiency and judicial economy, the report recommends that the subsequent awards be annulled without having to file subsequent set aside petitions, in particular where the rationale for setting aside the partial award extends to the subsequent awards. This would ensure consistency in the treatment of interrelated awards and avoid the need to request for annulment of a subsequent award where the reasons for annulment are the same (e.g. lack of jurisdiction, or lack of independence of an arbitrator), or where the annulment of an initial award renders a subsequent award null and void (e.g. award on the principle of indemnification before the award on quantum). The Working Group made a similar proposal when a French court refuses to recognize or enforce a partial award rendered abroad, and subsequent awards in the same case depend on the initial award.
Lastly, and inspired by Article 34(4) of the UNICITRAL Model law, and the laws of certain jurisdictions, the Working Group recommends that judges be given the authority to stay annulment proceedings so as to grant an opportunity to the arbitral tribunal to resume the arbitral proceedings and take other actions that, in the analysis of the arbitral tribunal, will eliminate set aside grounds. As an example, the report expressly notes that, if topics involving mandatory public policy, such as corruption, were not raised before the arbitral tribunal, the Court of Appeal would have the authority to stay annulment proceedings and afford the arbitral tribunal an opportunity to review these allegations, which may cure problems at the annulment stage.
Promotion of Arbitration Law and Training of its Key Players
The proposed reform is not only concerned with the legal and procedural aspects of arbitration, but also with its promotion and dissemination, as well as the training and education of its key players. The reform recognizes that the attractiveness and the strength of the French arbitration law depend not only on the quality and clarity of its rules, but also on how these are interpreted and applied by its judges and lawyers. France has had sophisticated judges in international arbitration for more than a century and solid arbitration professionals. The proposed reform therefore builds on existing strengths and proposes various measures to enhance the visibility and the reputation of French arbitration law, and to improve the skills and the knowledge of the various actors in the field.
Conclusion
The French Ministry of Justice had the innovative spirit to establish a Working Group composed of broad range of arbitration specialists. It took into account developments in the arbitration laws of other countries and proposed reforms aimed at even greater efficiency and attractiveness. If enacted in whole or in part, the results should reinforce Paris' position as a formidable seat of arbitration for users in both France and abroad and promote arbitral and judicial innovation.
Footnote
1. Daniel Schimmel is a member of the French Ministry of Justice Working Group.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
