France | Reform of Arbitration law

On April 8, 2025, during the Paris Arbitration Week, France’s Ministers of Justice Gérard Darmanin, announced a significant reform of French arbitration law. The aim of this reform is to clarify, modernise and consolidate the regulatory framework, the last substantial revision of which dates back to 2011.

It is set to culminate in the adoption of an Arbitration code by autumn 2026. This code is envisioned as a unifying legal instrument that will enhance the clarity, autonomy and international appeal of French arbitration law.

Structural proposals: building an autonomous and coherent legal framework

The creation of a standalone Arbitration Code

The proposal n°1 calls for the unification of all legislative and regulatory text governing arbitration within a dedicated code, structured into several parts and decoupled from the approximately 20 existing codes currently housing arbitration provisions.

This codification process is not purely technical, it serves pedagogical, symbolic and strategic purposes namely, enhancing the clarity, accessibility and international attractiveness of French arbitration law.

Common provisions for domestic and international arbitration

 Proposal n°3 and 4 suggest reorganising French arbitration law around a set of common rules applicable to both domestic and international arbitration with limited derogation for the former. This represents a shift from the current dualistic system to a more unified and clearer and framework without eliminating the particularities of either.

As an instance, a preliminary article would define the international nature of arbitration, abandoning outdated reference to “commercial” character in favour of a more inclusive in realistic standard.

However, it does not mean a division summa divisio of those two types of arbitration because of the stable wish to preserve the dissociation between ordre public interne and ordre public international.

Codification of guiding principles

Proposal n°5 aims to enshrine as guiding principles (“principes directeurs”) those considered to embody the core values of French arbitration law such as the autonomy of the arbitration agreement, the competence-competence principle, the independence and impartiality of the arbitral tribunal, and the respect for the adversarial principle and party equality.

Others, though not considered fundamental, nonetheless shape the legal framework, such as good faith, loyalty, the principle of effectiveness (“effet utile”), confidentiality, proportionality, procedural loyalty and celerity, parties’ autonomy in choosing applicable law and procedure rules, amiable composition and access to justice (prevention of denial of justice), which form the broader ethical and procedural framework of arbitration in France.

Over the 19 principles elected to be enshrined, the report highlights and develop only few:

• Regarding the principle of independence and impartiality of the arbitral tribunal, it is given a particular prominence in the reform, both through its inclusion in the preliminary article of the Code and its designation as a guiding principle. However, the reform does not aim to consolidate the jurisprudence that has recognised exceptions such as the notoriety or the parties’ duty of curiosity (which exempt the arbitrator from disclosing allegedly well-known facts). Instead, it adopts a strict approach according to which, arbitrators must disclose any circumstances that, in the eyes of the parties, could affect their independence or impartiality, and cannot rely on the fact that such information might be publicly known. Parties are not expected to be in a state of constant investigation.
• Regarding the equality of the parties, this principle is reaffirmed at the stage of the constitution of the arbitral tribunal and throughout the arbitral proceedings. It ensures that the parties are treated equally and fairly.
• Regarding the confidentiality of proceedings, the reform extends this principle (already established in domestic arbitration) to international arbitration, while allowing for necessary exceptions, particularly in the context of investment arbitration. However, its application ultimately remains subject to party autonomy.
• Regarding the proportionality, article 14 serves both as an encouragement and support for the arbitral tribunal. It urges the tribunal to “adopt a procedure adapted to the complexity and stakes of the dispute”. In response to certain issues and recurring criticisms regarding the cost and duration of arbitration, this is a call for moderation on all fronts (time, volume of submissions, document production requests, length of hearings, number of witnesses to be heard, and the cost for the parties).
• Regarding the prohibition of denial of justice, this principle introduces a new role for the supporting judge (“juge d’appui”), who becomes the judge overseeing the prevention of denial of justice in a broader sense. His role extends both materially, in cases where it is impossible to appoint an arbitrator, and substantively, when the timely delivery of an award is at risk.

These principles are presented not merely as procedural standards but as fundamental values that shape and distinguish the French approach to arbitration.

Unification of judicial control and support

Proposals N°6 to 9 aim to unify and rationalise the judicial handling of arbitration disputes by several objectives such as exclusive jurisdiction of the judicial courts (“tribunal judiciaire”) over all challenges and enforcement of international arbitral awards, including those involving public entities, thereby ending the long-standing jurisdictional duality exposed in the Inserm case (2010), where the recognition and enforcement of international awards involving French public entities was scattered between judicial and administrative Courts.

Exclusive jurisdiction is awarded to the Paris Judicial Court to decide on all international arbitration matters. Another purpose is the specialisation of domestic courts in handling arbitration matters, and the elimination of residual competence formerly existing in favour of commercial courts presidents as supporting judges (“juges d’appui”).

This restructuring is intended to foster efficiency, consistency, and international credibility.

Substantive changes: a more flexible, protective and efficient arbitration framework

Promotion of flexibility

Several proposals aim to liberalize and modernize arbitration procedures like the elimination of the references to “commercial” matters in determining the international character of arbitration and the tribunal’s ability to apply to trade usages.

It will also serve this purpose by simplifying the formal requirements for arbitration agreements, removing the requirement that the clause be in writing and aligning domestic arbitration on international standards.

In this regard, the reform aims to abolish the written form requirement for arbitration agreements to align domestic and international arbitration rules. As arbitration agreements are typically written in practice, this formal requirement is now seen as outdated and inconsistent with general contract law.

However, the requirement of written form will remain solely a matter of evidence. At the stage of enforcement or annulment proceedings, the arbitration agreement (or a copy thereof) will need to be produced. In practice, this means that the arbitration agreement will still have to be recorded in a document, even if it does not meet the strict definition of a written instrument.

Party protection and procedural safeguards

The reform also seeks to bolster procedural guarantees such as the necessity for tribunal’s seated in France to be composed of an odd number of arbitrators.

According to the proposition of code, arbitrators should be natural persons, through these does not hinder recognition of awards rendered abroad by legal entities and the contractual nature of relationships between parties, arbitrators and arbitral institution will be formally recognised.

A mechanism for financial hardship (“impécuniosité”) is introduced to prevent abuses and ensure access to justice. Jurisprudence has confirmed that impecuniosity does not render the arbitration agreement manifestly void or inapplicable. While ensuring access to arbitration lies with the “arbitration actors” (i.e arbitrators, institutions, parties) the authority of the supporting judge (“juge d’appui”) to intervene in support of an impecunious party remains unsettled.

The reform proposal aims to expressly empower the juge d’appui to facilitate arbitral proceedings in such circumstances by ordering “any appropriate measures” (art. 33): this would serve to prevent a genuine denial of justice. Measures may include procedural actions (e.g., convening a case management conference) or substantive adaptations (e.g., amending the arbitration agreement to reduce costs, appointing a sole arbitrator, selecting a less expensive arbitral institution, or streamlining proceedings by limiting document production, written submissions, or hearings).

It also proposes a clarification of arbitration rules applicable in labour, family, and consumer fields:

• Regarding Family Law, the working group clarified that arbitration is allowed for patrimonial issues in family law but excluded for matters related to personal status. Divorce remains under state Courts’ jurisdiction. For patrimonial matters, additional safeguards are proposed, such as a written agreement, lawyers counter-signature, appeal options. Family judges will also have exclusive jurisdiction on recognition and enforcement of the awards.
• Regarding Labour Law and Consumer Law, the proposed measures aim to emphasize that while an arbitration agreement is permissible in these areas, it cannot be imposed by the “strong” party on the “weak” party. The latter will always have the option to exclude its application and revert to State Courts. Furthermore, in these areas, the principle of competence-competence is excluded, meaning that the consumer or the employee will not be obliged to establish an arbitral tribunal in order to invoke the jurisdiction of the State Court.

A protection of third-party rights is also specified through accessory intervention before the Court of Appeal and rule for third party opposition (tierce opposition), prohibited against arbitral awards but allowed against the Court decision related to them, such as decisions related to annulment proceedings or requests for exequatur.

Procedural efficiency

To promote procedural efficiency, the reform proposes the codification of the negative effect of the competence-competence principle, the authorization of consolidation of arbitral proceedings.

It entails the following modification and few others:

• Rewriting of the article 1448 of the Code of civil procedure and elimination of its last paragraph. This article currently states that “where a dispute falling within the scope of an arbitration agreement is brought before a State court, the court shall decline jurisdiction unless the arbitral tribunal has not yet been seized and the arbitration agreement is manifestly null and void or manifestly inapplicable”. Its second and third paragraph state that “the state court may not raise its lack of jurisdiction ex officio” and that “any provision to the contrary shall be deemed unwritten”.

Contrary stipulations would therefore be permitted, and parties could expressly provide in their arbitration agreement that the court is authorized to conduct a full review of the arbitration clause, or that the parties waive the principle of the arbitrator’s priority. However, such a deviation to be valid, it must be explicit and unequivocal.

• In order to consolidate procedures, unless the parties agree otherwise, in cases involving claims based on multiple contracts or related to multiple contracts, these claims should be made in a single arbitration proceeding under one or more arbitration agreements. However, two conditions are required: the compatibility of the arbitration agreements and the existence of a connection between the claims such that it is in the interest of efficiency and justice to have them heard and decided together by the arbitral tribunal.
• Under the current law, the arbitral tribunal can impose a penalty (“astreinte”), but there is not provision regarding its authority to liquidate it. The future code would allow the tribunal to do so “as long as it remains seized of the case”. However, it does not mean that the tribunal to retain jurisdiction for the purpose of liquidating the penalty after it has rendered its final award.

In addition to this, the project lays the groundwork for class arbitration, poses principles of procedural loyalty and concentration of arguments and expanding the powers of the supporting judge to address denial of justice, financial hardship, evidence production, enforcement and interim measures, and constitution of tribunals.

The efficiency objective also extends to recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards in clarifying recognition procedures and deadlines, removing the suspensive effect of appeals in domestic arbitration, allowing incidental annulment or refusing of enforcement to apply to related awards, and revisiting annulment grounds and enabling award correction or classification to avoid annulment or enforcement refusal.

Regulatory adjustments and technical reforms and promoting transparency

This reform includes adjustment proposals to ensure consistency across existing legislation and regulation.

Lastly, this reform addresses the promotion and dissemination of French arbitration law by increasing transparency in the appointment of arbitrators by supporting judges, including publication of the names and an annual public list. It is planned to reinforce judicial training in arbitration through enhanced ENM (“Ecole Nationale de la Magistrature”, which is the national school of judges) programs, internships with the ICC, and digital tools.

Promoting French arbitration law domestically and internationally through multilingual commentaries, outreach events, and strategic communication will be a way to extend the project.

In conclusion, the 2025 reform constitutes a major step toward modern, readable, and globally competitive French arbitration law. By consolidating legislation, strengthening procedural safeguards, and fostering accessibility and transparency, the proposed arbitration code is poised to elevate France as a leading venue for arbitration.