France's New Arbitration Decree Of 6 August 2026: Key Takeaways For International Arbitration

France publishes its first proposals for reform of its arbitration law in fifteen years, introducing measures to modernise, improve efficiency and clarify key concepts

The decree is the product of a reform process launched in 2025. At the request of the Ministry of Justice, a working group co-chaired by François Ancel and Professor Thomas Clay submitted a report in the spring of 2025 containing proposals for reforming arbitration law, together with a preliminary draft Arbitration Code. The reform was then announced in April 2025, during Paris Arbitration Week, following a three-stage approach: an initial decree on points of consensus, a consultation phase on issues still under debate, and ultimately the adoption of an Arbitration Code.

Following consultation with the French arbitration community between January and March 2026, the Ministry of Justice published a decree comprising 23 articles on points of broad consensus. This is intended as a first step; a second decree on more complex issues is reportedly being drafted ahead of a possible legislative phase aimed at adopting an Arbitration Code.

This post focuses on the most significant changes introduced by the decree for international arbitration. Changes specific to domestic arbitration alone are not addressed here, although some of the measures discussed below are also intended to apply to domestic arbitration.

In keeping with previous French reforms, the decree aims to strengthen Paris’s position as a leading arbitration seat by introducing measures designed to enhance efficiency, modernise the law and provide greater clarity.

Enhancing the efficiency of international arbitration 

Consolidation of claims arising from multiple contracts into a single arbitration (Articles 1462-1 and 1506(3))

Until now, consolidation of claims from separate contracts was essentially provided for by institutional rules such as the ICC Rules. The decree enshrines this option (eagerly awaited by practitioners) directly in the Code of Civil Procedure, whether or not the applicable rules provide for it. 

In practice, a single arbitral tribunal will now be able to hear all claims based on, or simply relating to, several contracts, even where those contracts are governed by separate arbitration agreements. The only conditions are that the arbitration agreements must be compatible with one another and that no party objects. The aim is to prevent the proliferation of parallel proceedings concerning related disputes.

Introduction of a principle of procedural proportionality (Articles 1464 and 1506(3))

A new requirement is added to Article 1464 of the Code of Civil Procedure (which sets out the obligations of the parties and arbitrators during the proceedings) that each party must endeavour to adapt the procedure to the complexity and stakes of the dispute. This amounts to a requirement for proportionality in the conduct of arbitrations: the number of arbitrators, the duration and number of hearings, and the volume of documents should all, depending on the circumstances, be adjusted to ensure a more efficient procedure.

Extended powers of the juge d'appui (Articles 1468, 1469, 1506(3) and 1505(5))

The juge d'appui (the judge acting in support of the arbitration, a role established by the 2011 decree) has been granted two new powers.

First, the juge d'appui may confer provisional enforceability on interim or protective measures ordered by the tribunal. Until now, these decisions could not be subject to exequatur, and the tribunal could only impose astreintes (penalty payments) to secure compliance. A party will now be able to apply to the juge d'appui to obtain enforcement against a party with assets in France, subject to verification that the measure does not seriously infringe a party’s rights or contravene international public policy. The decision may be appealed. 

Second, the juge d'appui may now order a third party to produce evidence in its possession - a power previously held by the president of the tribunal judiciaire. Parties to arbitrations seated abroad may also benefit from this mechanism where the third party resides in France (Article 1505).

Power of arbitrators to assess penalty payments / astreintes (Article 1468-1)

Until now, whilst an arbitral tribunal could impose an astreinte to secure compliance with its decisions, it previously had no statutory basis to assess the resulting payment itself. 

New Article 1468-1 allows the tribunal to do so. The text specifies that the assessment decision constitutes an arbitral award within the meaning of the definition now set out in Article 1478. This classification matters: it subjects the assessment to the regime governing arbitral awards - in particular as regards the possibility of obtaining exequatur and of bringing an appeal.

Adjustments to the negative effect of the competence-competence principle (Articles 1448 and 1506(1))

The decree introduces two amendments to Article 1448, which governs the allocation of jurisdiction between the state courts and the arbitral tribunal.

• The state court must now assess whether the arbitral tribunal has been seized as at the date on which the matter is brought before it. This clarification, which was absent from the 2011 text, is welcome: it discourages delaying tactics involving the hasty constitution of an arbitral tribunal for the sole purpose of neutralising the court's jurisdiction, and relieves the court of the need to monitor how the situation develops as proceedings unfold.
• The parties may now, by express and unequivocal agreement, exclude the negative effect of the competence-competence principle - something that was previously prohibited. The state court will thus be able to rule on the validity or applicability of the arbitration clause without waiting for the arbitral tribunal’s decision. The aim is again efficiency, even though it carries the risk of divergent positions between the court and the tribunal on the question of jurisdiction. However, the rule preventing the court from raising its own lack of jurisdiction of its own motion remains unchanged.

Clarifications 

A correction to the definition of international arbitration (Article 1504) and a statutory definition of the arbitral award (Articles 1478 and 1506(4))

Article 1504 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been amended to replace the reference to ‘the interests of international trade’ with ‘international economic interests’. This change is purely terminological: it does not alter the qualifying criterion established by case law, but clarifies its scope and updates the language.

For the first time, the decree introduces a statutory definition of the arbitral award into the Code of Civil Procedure. An award is defined as the act by which the arbitral tribunal definitively settles all or part of the dispute, whether as to its own jurisdiction, a procedural objection terminating the proceedings, or the merits. This definition, which applies to international arbitration, distinguishes what may therefore be subject to exequatur or appeal from what may not, such as interim and protective measures.

Recognition of the award, distinguished from exequatur (Article 1516-1)

The decree clarifies in the Code the possibility of obtaining recognition of an award independently of exequatur. This distinction, already established in practice, enables a party to have the award recognised as binding in other proceedings - for example, in the event of the debtor’s insolvency - without pursuing its compulsory enforcement. Recognition may also be sought by way of an incidental application, in particular where a party invokes the res judicata effect of the award in separate proceedings.

Modernisation 

Formal recognition of electronic awards (Articles 1480-1, 1480-2 and 1506(4))

Awards may now expressly be rendered in electronic form. No legislation previously prohibited or regulated this. An electronic award must be drawn up using procedures that guarantee its integrity and preservation.

For domestic arbitration, a qualified electronic signature is required. This requirement does not apply in international arbitration, preserving the flexibility that characterises the field - particularly as regards signature formalities for arbitrators of different nationalities.

Procedural rules facilitating the use of languages other than French before the state courts (Articles 1527-3 to 1527-5)

Three exceptions to the general procedural rules have been introduced for appeals in international arbitration brought before the Court of Appeal - provisions directly modelled on the protocol applied before the International Commercial Chamber of the Paris Court of Appeal:

• Parties may now submit documents in a language other than French without a translation (though the judge may request one). Witness statements may be typed rather than handwritten, by way of derogation from the general requirement for handwritten statements.
•  Parties, their counsel, witnesses and experts may be authorised by the judge to speak in a language other than French. The judge may appoint an interpreter and decide which party bears the cost.
• The Court of Appeal may, at the request of one or both parties, adapt its reasoning and the arrangements for publication of its decision to preserve the confidentiality inherent in international arbitration. Until now, the exercise of this power was uncertain due to the absence of specific legislation.

Entry into force

The decree comes into force on 1 January 2027. To prevent certain provisions from applying retrospectively, the following transitional rules apply:

• The rules relating to the arbitration agreement and the definition of international arbitration apply to agreements concluded on or after 1 January 2027.
• The rules relating to the arbitral tribunal and the proceedings apply to arbitral tribunals constituted after 1 January 2027.
• The rules relating to the award, its exequatur, its recognition and remedies apply to awards made after 1 January 2027. 

This reform, presented as the first stage of a more comprehensive overhaul, reflects France's determination to maintain Paris's leading position as a seat for international arbitration. It forms part of a broader trend of recent reforms - notably in England and Germany - in the context of increasing competition among arbitration centres worldwide. Whilst it does not revolutionise the field, it introduces a number of welcome and practical innovations.

The authors would like to thank Raphael Beaulieu for his contributions to this post.