France | Reform of Arbitration law

21 de mayo de 2025

  • Francia
  • Arbitraje
  • Litigios

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As an instance, a preliminary article would define the international nature of arbitration, abandoning outdated reference to “commercial” character in favour of a more inclusive in realistic standard.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

Summary: Companies with international projection and global presence can count on mediation and its benefits in the different contexts of their business, both in the compliance of the code of conduct and internal rules as well as in the compliance of contracts and projects with third parties or public authorities. In the same way, it facilitates access to a saturated justice system, while at the same time improving the relationship between the parties, as they do not have to face the wear and tear of the judicial phase, which leads to emotional wear and tear.

I will focus on the intersection between compliance and mediation, as international corporations are increasingly interested in the potential of Mediation applied to compliance frameworks. Although there are a few important challenges that we need to mention, the benefits of international mediation are clear: costs savings, quick solutions and a good understanding between the parties. International mediation and compliance go hand in hand and, although they may not seem to have much in common, they complement each other. The purpose of this article is to illustrate with some practical examples the advantages of compliance mediation for small and medium-sized enterprises operating internationally, in order to demonstrate the potential that exists in this combination.

Mediation is a form of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) that involves the intervention of a neutral third party, known as the mediator, to help disputing parties reach a mutually acceptable agreement. Unlike litigation, which involves a judge making a binding decision, mediation allows the parties to control the outcome, facilitating a more collaborative and flexible approach to resolving disputes.

In the context of compliance issues and international contracts, mediation offers a unique advantage by addressing both legal and non-legal aspects of disputes, such as cultural differences, business practices, and organizational relationships. This flexibility is particularly important when dealing with international contracts, where cross-cultural understanding and respect for diverse legal systems are essential.

The key is still the same recipe as the initial negotiation of a contract. The parties objectively and in a neutral atmosphere and collaborative approach, find ‘solutions’ to their disagreements where both parties win. The so-called win-win is still the best scenario in which the parties should meet again in dispute resolution. I always insist on the word ‘reconnect’ because of its positive connotation in any relationship. Mediation allows the parties to negotiate a mutually acceptable outcome, preserving the relationship between them, with the additional value of cost and time efficiencies and confidentiality guaranteed throughout the process.

Mediation benefits compliance programmes in two keyways.

Resolving internal compliance issues

This is accomplished through facilitating communication and conflict resolution among employees, promoting a culture of dialogue, transparency and accountability. When a company uses mediation to resolve conflicts arising from internal compliance-related situations, it helps to prevent a conflict from escalating in proportions both in the form of legal action and disputes that may involve the public administration.

A clear example is conflicts related to the code of conduct, where disputes often arise at the HR level. Another example is that arising from conflicts of interest. In both cases the connection lies in the common goal of promoting ethical behaviour, improving communication and resolving conflicts in a way that helps the employee and the company to follow its internal rules and achieve the required standards.

Mediation opens a space for dialogue and amicable conflict resolution, facilitating employees’ professional and personal growth in a sustained way over time.

Another example can be conflicts related to cross-border labour issues applicable to the same company, whether private, non-governmental organisation or conflicts between private and public companies. The reasons for the conflict may be related to harassment issues or pay inequality issues. For example, the internal pay system within an international organisation should consider the following elements:

  • Remuneration represents by far the most important and controversial element of the employment relationship and is of equal interest to the employer and the employee.
  • The remuneration system should be based on and consistent with the principles of the organisation.
  • The criteria for determining remuneration should be objective and measurable.
  • The system should be equitable.

Conflicts often arise around these elements and companies should be transparent, through comprehensive policies, about their position on non-discrimination, harassment or inclusion of their employees within their organisation and the markets in which they operate.

Mediation can be a channel to help find solutions to equality and non-discrimination issues between employees within the same organisation. It also obliges companies to consider the standards of international legislation (e.g. CSRD) when implementing their policies. We are seeing that it is not a ‘nice to have’ but a ‘must have’.

Resolving disputes with external parties

Mediation can be used to enforce commercial contracts or in projects. It helps prevent disputes between companies or between companies and regulators, foster better relations, and ensure compliance standards are met without resorting to litigation. Mediation promotes cooperation between the parties and helps reduce the risk of future contractual violations.

A clear example of the benefits of the use of mediation in compliance arises in the international context where legal certainty is required for both parties, as well as fair and reasonable management of a long-term project. In some cases, there is a public-private element to the dispute as the public sector is involved (either in licensing issues or as a regulatory authority). This may create some confusion in the roles and rights of the parties, which makes perfect sense when the interests of the investor (private equity) and the community or private parties are very diverse.

For context, we might think of environmental, social and governance issues that are receiving serious attention from governments and regulators, given the impact on the planet and the people within the communities where they live. Mediation offers a way to resolve these conflicts by facilitating open communication between the parties involved. For instance, if a company is accused of breaching a country’s environmental regulations, mediation can provide a platform for the company and regulatory authorities to discuss the issues, share concerns, and negotiate a solution that satisfies both parties. Instead of pursuing punitive measures or resorting to lengthy legal battles, mediation can help parties find common ground and craft a solution that supports compliance while preserving business relationships.

A concrete example is mining activities, which contribute greatly to the involvement of foreign entities in resource-rich countries, involving, on a large scale, both foreign and domestic interests, and potentially resulting in pollution and damage to the environment. In addition, there are various problems, especially the use of land for mining activities, which causes friction between mining companies, communities and local governments where mining activities take place. Since these projects take place over a long period of time and involve various interests of both private and public actors as well as communities, mediation is undoubtedly a good way to prevent disputes during the whole process of project development and implementation, offering in conflict situations not only a quick solution for both parties but also a fair and reasonable management of a project in the long term.

Another tool, with elements of mediation, which is recommended for the successful completion of large projects, as for instance construction projects, are Dispute Boards, a panel of one to three members with extensive experience in the field of the contract, who accompany the execution of the contract until the work is completed on time and on budget. This method is not a pure and simple mediation, although it resembles it, because the Dispute Boards, in particular the so-called DAAB (Dispute Avoidance and Adjudication Board), permanently seek to avoid conflict and, if it arises, to encourage the parties to find a solution or to make it binding. I will go into more detail on this subject in another article.

Hereby, we can also mention internal control and auditability towards third parties, be they customers or suppliers. The EU directive (CSDDD) puts the emphasis on indirect suppliers in the supply chain. It is therefore important that when establishing a business or investment partnership, all parties involved have a similar level of compliance with standards. In this regard, framework compliance agreements, which are compliance agreements that regulate the compliance obligations of both parties’ subject to a service contract, are very common.

Aspects of compliance in such contracts may include, among others, anti-corruption policy, fee evasion, international sanctions, trainings, reporting requirements and ways to audit the compliance clauses agreed in the service contract, as well as the escalation clause to resolve disputes amicably, using the various existing ADR modes.

In the context of commercial contracts, mediation is used to resolve disputes related to non-performance, late deliveries, payment problems, interpretations of clauses or any other dispute arising from a commercial agreement, including any aspect of the compliance agreement as referred to above.

For an internationally developing company it would be advisable to promote mediation as the type of dispute resolution in conflicts with third parties. One way to promote mediation as an effective means of dispute resolution could be through a clause of voluntary submission to mediation in all transactions with third parties, followed by arbitration or submission to the courts of a certain jurisdiction, known as a tiered dispute resolution clause. These clauses provide for a gradual system of dispute resolution following various alternative methods of resolving disputes, usually culminating in arbitration if the outcome of the first alternative methods is unsuccessful.

The choice of conflict resolution through mediation is a ‘win-win solution’, whose confidentiality is guaranteed in the face of public attention. Based on these advantages, mediation is considered more suitable to be implemented (agreed, including with the escalation clause) in a contract.

Challenges of Mediation in International Contract Disputes

Despite its many advantages, mediation is not without its challenges. Some of the key obstacles include:

Lack of Enforcement Mechanisms: Mediation agreements are typically non-binding, meaning that parties are not legally required to adhere to the terms of the settlement. While mediation can result in a mutually agreed-upon solution, enforcing the agreement may require the parties to enter into further negotiations or even resort to litigation if one side fails to honour the agreement.

Cultural and Language Barriers: In international contract disputes, cultural differences and language barriers can complicate the mediation process. It is important to select mediators who have experience with cross-cultural communication and who understand the legal systems involved. Without such expertise, the mediation process may be ineffective.

Reluctance to Mediate: Some parties may be reluctant to mediate, especially if they perceive it as a sign of weakness or if they are unfamiliar with the process. This reluctance can be overcome with proper education and a clear understanding of the benefits of mediation.

Although we can say that there is a growth of mediation around the world and the level of satisfaction of the use of mediation is based on its core values, which are impartiality, confidentiality and self-determination, the promotion of the mediation is still an important challenge.

Conclusion

In the case of internal compliance, mediation usually takes a more reactive role, i.e. when the conflict has already surfaced within the company or organisation; whereas, in the case of third party compliance, mediation takes a preventive role, such as in the case of Dispute Boards, although it also helps to resolve a commercial conflict between parties who wish to continue to maintain a business relationship. In both cases the objective is the same, to try to find common ground between the interests of the parties in order to resolve or avoid a conflict that could lead the parties to a legal dispute.

As international trade continues to grow and the complexity of global regulations increases, businesses and organizations can benefit from adopting mediation as a strategic method for resolving conflicts. By fostering cooperation and understanding, mediation can help build stronger, more resilient business relationships and ensure long-term success in a global marketplace.

Companies need to adhere to their own compliance programmes, but also to the programme of their customers, suppliers or banks with whom they collaborate. Not only is there a need for expertise to know the legal framework applicable to the industry, but there is also a need for conflict resolution when conflicts arise or even to act pre-emptively. Legal battles are expensive, time-consuming and damaging to business relationships. Many jurisdictions and industries are already demanding an obligation for parties to exhaust alternative dispute resolution methods before moving to the litigation phase.

El arbitraje es un procedimiento para resolver los conflictos entre las partes que tiene gran éxito en el sistema legal anglosajón. Y bastante menos en nuestro país.

Tiene ventajas e inconvenientes; es más caro que los Tribunales, pero es mucho más rápido; y la velocidad es esencial para que la justicia sea tal.

Típicamente un arbitraje dura seis meses más un par de ellos para el nombramiento del árbitro; en total, en 8 meses puede estar definitivamente resuelto un conflicto, por importante y difícil que pueda ser.

Por comparar con los Tribunales, en España hoy debemos contar con unos 18 meses de media para tener sentencia en primera instancia y otro tanto para el recurso de apelación; sin contar con posible recurso ante el Tribunal Supremo.

La piedra angular sobre la que descansa el arbitraje es que el laudo del árbitro es final y definitivo y no admite revisión ni recurso; esta afirmación tiene determinadas excepciones fundamentalmente de carácter formal o procedimental: básicamente, la legalidad del convenio arbitral, la arbitrabilidad de la materia y la regularidad procedimental en el desarrollo del procedimiento arbitral. Estos vicios o defectos pueden ser atacados a través de un recurso de anulación del que si entiende la jurisdicción ordinaria.

Pero además de los posibles defectos “formales”, la acción de anulación del laudo puede apoyarse en la denuncia de una infracción del “orden público” que el Tribunal Constitucional ha definido y perfilado como “aquellos principios jurídicos públicos y privados, políticos, morales y económicos que son absolutamente obligatorios para la conservación de la sociedad en un pueblo y en una época determinada”.

Como esta definición de “orden público” es, indudablemente, amplia e inconcreta, el recurso a la vulneración del orden público como herramienta para declarar la nulidad de los laudos por la jurisdicción ordinaria, ha producido un efecto de “desbordamiento” que ha exigido, en palabras del Tribunal Constitucional “llevar a cabo una interpretación restrictiva del misma so pena de vulnerar la autonomía de la voluntad de las partes y su renuncia a la tutela jurisdiccional”.

Así lo ha proclamado dicho Tribunal en la muy importante sentencia de 15 de febrero pasado que motiva esta nota.

En estos últimos años el Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Madrid ha recurrido al argumento del “orden público” de manera extensiva y “desbordada” para anular laudos y “suplir al tribunal arbitral en su función de aplicar el derecho”, convirtiéndose en “una segunda instancia revisora de los hechos y derechos aplicados en el laudo, un mecanismo de control de la correcta aplicación de la jurisprudencia”.

Y esta interpretación del orden público expansiva y “desbordada” como herramienta para anular laudos por parte del TSJM se había convertido en un grave problema para la institución arbitral y para la confianza de los contratantes a la hora de incluir convenios arbitrales en sus contratos; el principio de que el laudo era la solución definitiva y final al conflicto que pretende resolver, salvo por infracciones procedimentales o infracción del orden publico limitado a aquellos casos en los que el laudo fuera arbitrario, ilógico, absurdo o irracional, quedaba en entredicho y suponía un elemento claramente disuasorio a la hora de que los contratantes decidieran resolver sus discrepancias por medio de arbitraje.

Pues bien, el Tribunal Constitucional de manera rotunda y explicita, repitiendo lo que ya adelantó en su sentencia de junio del año pasado, confirma que la necesidad de que el laudo no contravenga el orden público, no puede traer como consecuencia que el órgano judicial supla al árbitro en su función de aplicación del derecho, ni puede convertirse en una segunda instancia revisora de los hechos y de los fundamentos de derecho aplicados en el laudo ni un mecanismo de control de la correcta aplicación de la jurisprudencia.

Prima el principio de la autonomía de la voluntad de las partes; y ello significa que cuando existe sometimiento a arbitraje, las partes han convenido que debe ser a través de ese cauce como han de resolverse las controversias entre ellas, mediante la decisión del arbitro que solo  podrá ser anulada a través de los estrictos cauces que la propia Ley de Arbitraje regula; insistimos, por razones procedimentales o por vulnerar el orden público en la interpretación restringida que explica la sentencia que comentamos; pero en ningún caso, a modo de una segunda instancia donde se re -evalúen de nuevo los hechos y los fundamentos de derecho aplicados.

En suma, el arbitraje español está de enhorabuena, y podrá recuperar el impulso que le hizo perder, en parte, la interpretación extensiva del orden público que defendían algunos Tribunales Superiores de Justicia. A partir de ahora los Tribunales no podrán soslayar la interpretación del Tribunal Constitucional que supone un soplo de aire fresco para el arbitraje español.

In an important and very reasoned judgment delivered by the Court of Cassation of France on September 30, 2020, relating to the enforceability of arbitration clauses in international consumer contracts, the Supreme Court judged that these clauses must be considered unfair and cannot be opposed to consumers.  

The Supreme Court traditionally insisted on the priority given to the arbitrator to decide on his own jurisdiction, laid down in Article 1448 of the Code of Civil Procedure (principle known as «competence-competence», Jaguar, Civ. 1re, May 21, 1997, nos. 95-11.429 and 95-11.427). 

The ECJ expressed its hostility towards such clauses when they are opposed to consumers. In Mostaza Claro (C-168/05), it referred to the internal laws of member states, while considering that the procedural modalities offered by states should not “make it impossible in practice or excessively difficult to exercise the rights conferred by public order to consumers (“Directive 93/13, concerning unfair terms in consumer contracts, must be interpreted as meaning that a national court seized of an action for annulment of an arbitration award must determine whether the arbitration agreement is void and annul that award where that agreement contains an unfair term, even though the consumer has not pleaded that invalidity in the course of the arbitration proceedings, but only in that of the action for annulment”).  

It therefore referred to the national judge the right to implement its legislation on unfair terms, and therefore to decide, on a case-by-case basis, whether the arbitration clause should be considered unfair. This is what the Court of Cassation decided, ruling out the case-by-case method, and considering that in any event such a clause must be excluded in relations with consumers.  

The Court of Cassation adopted the same solution in international employment contracts, where it traditionally considers that arbitration clauses contained in international employment contracts are enforceable against employee (Soc. 16 Feb. 1999, n ° 96-40.643). 

The Supreme Court, although traditionally very favourable to arbitration, gradually builds up a set of specific exceptions to ensure the protection of the «weak» party.

Unfair commercial behaviours between professionals are sanctioned in Sections L442-1 and seq. of the French Commercial Code. French Courts tend to consider that those dispositions of the Commercial Code are mandatory, in particular Section L442-1, II of the Code on abrupt termination of commercial relationships. Based on this section, an operator can be held liable if he terminates a commercial relationship without respecting a prior notice which duration depends on the duration of the relationship.

Although this is considered to be a mandatory law, the French Supreme Court considers that it does not preclude to bring a dispute before foreign Courts in compliance with a jurisdiction clause (Civ.1, 8 July 2010, Doga, n°09-67013). Moreover, Courts have ruled for a long time now that arbitrators are entitled to apply national mandatory laws (Court of Appeal of Paris, 19 March 1993, Labinal, n°9221091). In the case Doga above quoted, the Court concluded that arbitrators are also entitled to apply Sections 442-1, II of the Commercial Code related to the conditions of termination of commercial relationship. Therefore, if a contract contains an arbitration clause, the judge is obliged to give priority to the arbitrators to decide on their own jurisdiction to decide on the case (principle « compétence-compétence ») in conformity with Section 1465 of the French Procedural Code. This solution was confirmed in a recent decision rendered on 5 September 2019 by the Court of Appeal of Paris in  Charlivari v. Sté Equivalanza, n°17/03703.

It is noteworthy to underline that two sets of sanctions are considered under Sections 442-1 and seq. of the Commercial Code: the first sanction allows the victim of unfair practice to seek damages (for instance for abrupt termination of commercial relationship) against the author of unfair practices;  the second sanction is decided by the public administration, under the authority of the Ministry of Economics : the Ministry is entitled to bring the case to Courts, which can then decide to fine the party who is liable of unfair practices (the fine can be up to 5% of the turnover made in France by the person liable or 5 Million EUR).

Therefore, one single matter can give rise to two procedures at the same time, the first one initiated by the victim and the second one at the request of the Ministry of Economics (Section L442-4 of the Code). In a case Apple v. Ministre de l’Economie, the Supreme Court (Civ.1, 6 juillet 2016, n° 15-21811) considered that the action of the Ministry of Economics cannot be decided by arbitrators, even if the contract contains an arbitration clause, because of the specificity of this action, which is not based on the contract by itself but on powers that the Ministry draws from the law.

Therefore, a clear distinction must be made between the two procedures: one is subject to the application of the dispute resolution clause (either national Courts, even foreign, or arbitration tribunals), when damages are sought from the author of unfair practices, including abrupt termination; the other one can be brought only before French national Courts, and the dispute resolution clause has no effect, in cases which are brought by the Ministry of Economics for administrative sanctions against the same author.

El procedimiento arbitral en España se caracteriza, y constituye una de sus grandes ventajas, por la dificultad de anular o revocar judicialmente el laudo; las partes saben que el laudo que se dicte es en la mayoría de los casos firme y definitivo y pone punto final al conflicto.

El art. 41 de la Ley de Arbitraje únicamente permite la anulación del laudo por razones de forma (inexistencia o invalidez del convenio arbitral, falta de notificación a alguna de las partes sobre la designación del árbitro o de las actuaciones arbitrales, indebida designación de los árbitros o que los árbitros hayan resuelto sobre materias que no eran o no podían ser objeto de arbitraje por imperio de la ley). Y adicionalmente el laudo también es anulable cuando es contrario al “orden público”.

Que cosa sea el “orden público” como para dar lugar, en caso de vulneración, a la anulación del laudo, es cuestión que de siempre ha sido controvertida y debatida; ya en la Convención de Nueva York de 1958 se alude el “orden público” como causa de denegación del reconocimiento de laudos extranjeros. Como recuerda el Tribunal Constitucional (“TC”) en la sentencia que comentamos, citando su propia jurisprudencia, “el orden público material es el conjunto de principios jurídicos públicos y privados, políticos, morales y económicos que son absolutamente obligatorios para la conservación de la sociedad en un pueblo y en una época determinada y el orden público procesal se configura como el conjunto de formalidades y principios necesarios de nuestro ordenamiento jurídico procesal y solo el arbitraje que contradiga alguno o algunos de tales principios podrá ser tachado de nulo por vulneración del orden público”.

A título de ejemplo, durante 2018 se presentaron 38 demandas de anulación de laudos ante los Tribunales Superiores de Justicia (“TSJ”) de los que 31 se fundamentaban en vulneración del orden público; resultaron estimadas 8 de las demandas (21%), 5 por vulneración del orden público y 3 por invalidez del convenio arbitral.

El TSJ de Madrid ha venido manteniendo en los últimos tiempos una interpretación muy “expansiva” del orden público, lo que ha generado dudas y temores en las instituciones y Cortes Arbitrales, por el efecto disuasorio que dicha posición podría tener a la hora de elegir Madrid como sede de arbitrajes, nacionales o internacionales.

Y en la línea interpretativa a la que nos referimos, el TSJ de Madrid ha mantenido el siguiente y sorprendente criterio: dictado un laudo e interpuesta demanda de anulación por una de las partes, los litigantes alcanzaron un acuerdo extrajudicial y solicitaron conjuntamente  el archivo de la demanda de anulación; es decir, ambos daban el laudo por bueno y definitivo; el TSJ rechazó la petición y siguió adelante hasta dictar sentencia anulando el laudo, argumentando que como la demanda de anulación se basaba en la infracción del orden público, entonces ya la materia no era disponible por las partes y no era, en opinión del Tribunal, susceptible de transacción o renuncia.

No era esta la primera vez que el TSJ adoptaba esta postura: impetrada la anulación de un laudo por ser contrario al “orden público”, las partes ya no tenían la posibilidad de transar y renunciar a la demanda de anulación.

Por primera vez el asunto ha llegado al Tribunal Constitucional (TC): en un reciente fallo del 15 de junio de 2020, el TC ha sido claro y rotundo; recuerda en su sentencia que el proceso civil se fundamenta en el principio de “disposición de las partes para regular sus intereses privados, es decir, para iniciar la actividad jurisdiccional, determinar el objeto del proceso y ponerle fin cuando estimen conveniente”. Es lo que llamamos “justicia rogada”; y este principio aplica no solo a los procedimientos civiles ante los tribunales ordinarios sino también a los procedimientos arbitrales; asimismo afirma la sentencia que el arbitraje está configurado por la Ley como un mecanismo heterónomo de resolución de conflictos al que es consustancial la mínima intervención de los órganos judiciales a favor de la autonomía de la voluntad.

Y concluye sentando que la acción de anulación debe ser entendida como un proceso de control externo sobre el laudo que no permite una decisión sobre el fondo de la decisión de los árbitros, al estar tasadas las causas, lo que justifica que “el control de los laudos tenga carácter limitado y solo pueda obtenerse la anulación del laudo en casos excepcionales”.

En suma, entiende y proclama el TC que es contrario al derecho a la tutela judicial efectiva que protege el art. 24 de la Constitución la negativa del Tribunal a reconocer la virtualidad de un acuerdo alcanzado entre los litigantes con fundamento en el poder dispositivo de las partes sin que medie norma prohibitiva que así lo autorice e imponiendo una decisión que subvierte el principio dispositivo o de “justicia rogada” que inspira el proceso civil; por lo que concede el amparo solicitado y ordena retrotraer las actuaciones al momento anterior al auto que denegó virtualidad a la solicitud conjunta de archivo para que el TSJ dicte otra resolución acompasada al criterio del TC.

En suma, no podrá ya nunca más el TSJM impedir a los litigantes transar y poner fin a una demanda de anulación de laudo (como ocurre pacífica y habitualmente con los recursos de apelación o de casación) y además deberá tomar en consideración en adelante la interpretación restrictiva del concepto de orden público que ha establecido el TC en esta importante sentencia. En efecto, el arbitraje español sale muy reforzado con esta sentencia del TC.

Are arbitration and jurisdiction clauses contained in insurance contracts enforceable against a third party which is acting directly against the insurer in third party liability insurances?

Such direct action is admitted by French law in liability insurances, as defined in article 124-3 of the Insurance Code.

In just a few months two radically different approaches have been taken by the French Cour de cassation (Civ.1, 19 December 2018, n°17-28.951) and the ECJ in Assens Havn v. Navigator Management UK Ltd (13 July 2017, C-368/16) and KABEG v. MMA IARD (20 July 2017, C-340/16).

The case submitted to the Cour de cassation represented a third party exercising a direct right of action before French Courts against the insurer of a floating barge which had caused him a damage. The Supreme Court accepted that the insurer could validly oppose the arbitration clause, which was in the policy against the third party, and therefore judged that French Court had no jurisdiction to decide on the case. The Supreme Court applied the well-established principle of Compétence-Compétence – materialized in article 1448 of the French Code de Procédure Civile – to stay the case, considering that the arbitration clause could not be set aside. The Court therefore judged that the applicability of the arbitration clause should be determined by the arbitrators by priority.

A year before, the ECJ had ruled in the opposite direction in a case where a jurisdiction clause was applicable in the insurance policy. In Assens Havn v. Navigator Management UK Ltd, the ECJ stated that the clause could not be opposed to the third party acting directly against the insurer. According to the Court, the insurers’ liability towards the insured has a contractual nature when based on the policy, whereas it is extra-contractual when the liability is based on a direct action from a third party. In a previous ruling the Court had considered (Sté financière et industrielle du Peloux (12 May 2005, C-112/03) that the jurisdiction clause cannot be opposed to the beneficiary of an insurance policy if he is not the policyholder (for instance in a collective insurance).

One sees a clear difference in treatment between arbitration clause and jurisdiction clause when it comes to deciding on their opposability to the victim exercising a direct action against the insurer.

Article 2061 paragraph 2 of the Civil Code states that an arbitration cannot be opposed to a party which has not contracted for the purpose of its business activity. The French Cour de cassation grounded its decision on the fact that the clauses of the main contract could be opposed to the third party. If the latter was entitled to apply the insurance contract, it was therefore entitled to invoke article 2061 paragraph 2 of the Civil Code.

On 29 March 2019 new amendments to the federal law “On arbitration in the Russian Federation” entered into force. This law regulates the order of establishment and activities of arbitration courts and permanently acting arbitration institutions (PAAI) in Russia and applies to resolution of both international and local disputes by arbitration in Russia.

The key amendments relate to granting of rights to foreign arbitration centers to perform functions of PAAIs in Russia. Earlier such rights were granted by the government, but as from 29 March 2019 such functions were transferred to the Ministry of Justice. Ministry of Justice grants the rights to perform functions of PAAIs in Russia to foreign arbitration centers based on recommendations received from the Council on improvement of arbitrations.

As of 31 March 2019, there are only 4 (four) PAAIs authorized to administer disputes by arbitration in Russia and all of them are Russian organizations. In accordance with the latest news the Hong Kong International Arbitration Center (HKIAC) is the first international arbitration center that has recently received a recommendation from the Council on improvement of arbitrations to establish PAAI in Russia and has been approved by the Ministry of Justice to establish PAAI in Russia. In accordance with the law an arbitration center is included in the list of PAAIs in Russia within 15 days from the date of approval by the Council, i.e. by the end of April 2019 HKIAC could become the first international arbitration center authorized to administer international disputes in Russia.

Another issue that should be carefully considered by choosing an arbitration center relate to resolution of disputes between companies established in Russia (local disputes) by international arbitration centers not included in the list of PAAIs in Russia and not authorized to consider local disputes in Russia.

Though there is no direct prohibition established by the Russian law to settle disputes between Russian companies by foreign arbitration centers with the seat of arbitration outside of Russia, the possibility of referral of local disputes to foreign arbitration centers is still questionable. In one of the court decisions that caused disputes in legal community (case# А40-219464/16-52-430) the Russian court of first instance ruled that resolution of local disputes by the foreign arbitration institutions violates public policy in Russia. Notwithstanding the fact that such ruling was dismissed by the higher court instance the risk that the Russian courts might deny recognition of awards of foreign arbitration institutions not included in the list of PAAIs in Russia and not authorized to consider local disputes in Russia cannot be excluded.

Therefore, in situations when the disputes arise between companies established in Russia it would be reasonable to choose arbitration institution included in the list of PAAIs in Russia and authorized to administer local disputes in Russia or, alternatively, agree on resolution of disputes by the Russian commercial courts.

Takeaways

  • if you agree in international contracts that the seat of arbitration is in Russia, it would be reasonable to choose the arbitration center included in the list of PAAIs in Russia and authorized to resolve international disputes in Russia.
  • If you agree in local contracts to resolve disputes by arbitration, it would be reasonable to choose the arbitration center included in the list of PAAIs in Russia and authorized to resolve local disputes in Russia.

Alexandre Malan

Áreas de práctica

  • Arbitraje
  • Contratos de distribución
  • Seguros
  • Comercio internacional
  • Derecho Internacional Privado
Contáctanos Alexandre

Contacta con Alexandre





    Lea la política de privacidad de Legalmondo.
    Este sitio está protegido por reCAPTCHA y se aplican la Política de privacidad de Google y los Términos de servicio.

    Mediation as an instrument to solve conflicts in compliance related issues and international contracts

    9 de abril de 2025

    • Mediación
    • Arbitraje
    • Litigios

    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.

    Summary: Companies with international projection and global presence can count on mediation and its benefits in the different contexts of their business, both in the compliance of the code of conduct and internal rules as well as in the compliance of contracts and projects with third parties or public authorities. In the same way, it facilitates access to a saturated justice system, while at the same time improving the relationship between the parties, as they do not have to face the wear and tear of the judicial phase, which leads to emotional wear and tear.

    I will focus on the intersection between compliance and mediation, as international corporations are increasingly interested in the potential of Mediation applied to compliance frameworks. Although there are a few important challenges that we need to mention, the benefits of international mediation are clear: costs savings, quick solutions and a good understanding between the parties. International mediation and compliance go hand in hand and, although they may not seem to have much in common, they complement each other. The purpose of this article is to illustrate with some practical examples the advantages of compliance mediation for small and medium-sized enterprises operating internationally, in order to demonstrate the potential that exists in this combination.

    Mediation is a form of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) that involves the intervention of a neutral third party, known as the mediator, to help disputing parties reach a mutually acceptable agreement. Unlike litigation, which involves a judge making a binding decision, mediation allows the parties to control the outcome, facilitating a more collaborative and flexible approach to resolving disputes.

    In the context of compliance issues and international contracts, mediation offers a unique advantage by addressing both legal and non-legal aspects of disputes, such as cultural differences, business practices, and organizational relationships. This flexibility is particularly important when dealing with international contracts, where cross-cultural understanding and respect for diverse legal systems are essential.

    The key is still the same recipe as the initial negotiation of a contract. The parties objectively and in a neutral atmosphere and collaborative approach, find ‘solutions’ to their disagreements where both parties win. The so-called win-win is still the best scenario in which the parties should meet again in dispute resolution. I always insist on the word ‘reconnect’ because of its positive connotation in any relationship. Mediation allows the parties to negotiate a mutually acceptable outcome, preserving the relationship between them, with the additional value of cost and time efficiencies and confidentiality guaranteed throughout the process.

    Mediation benefits compliance programmes in two keyways.

    Resolving internal compliance issues

    This is accomplished through facilitating communication and conflict resolution among employees, promoting a culture of dialogue, transparency and accountability. When a company uses mediation to resolve conflicts arising from internal compliance-related situations, it helps to prevent a conflict from escalating in proportions both in the form of legal action and disputes that may involve the public administration.

    A clear example is conflicts related to the code of conduct, where disputes often arise at the HR level. Another example is that arising from conflicts of interest. In both cases the connection lies in the common goal of promoting ethical behaviour, improving communication and resolving conflicts in a way that helps the employee and the company to follow its internal rules and achieve the required standards.

    Mediation opens a space for dialogue and amicable conflict resolution, facilitating employees’ professional and personal growth in a sustained way over time.

    Another example can be conflicts related to cross-border labour issues applicable to the same company, whether private, non-governmental organisation or conflicts between private and public companies. The reasons for the conflict may be related to harassment issues or pay inequality issues. For example, the internal pay system within an international organisation should consider the following elements:

    • Remuneration represents by far the most important and controversial element of the employment relationship and is of equal interest to the employer and the employee.
    • The remuneration system should be based on and consistent with the principles of the organisation.
    • The criteria for determining remuneration should be objective and measurable.
    • The system should be equitable.

    Conflicts often arise around these elements and companies should be transparent, through comprehensive policies, about their position on non-discrimination, harassment or inclusion of their employees within their organisation and the markets in which they operate.

    Mediation can be a channel to help find solutions to equality and non-discrimination issues between employees within the same organisation. It also obliges companies to consider the standards of international legislation (e.g. CSRD) when implementing their policies. We are seeing that it is not a ‘nice to have’ but a ‘must have’.

    Resolving disputes with external parties

    Mediation can be used to enforce commercial contracts or in projects. It helps prevent disputes between companies or between companies and regulators, foster better relations, and ensure compliance standards are met without resorting to litigation. Mediation promotes cooperation between the parties and helps reduce the risk of future contractual violations.

    A clear example of the benefits of the use of mediation in compliance arises in the international context where legal certainty is required for both parties, as well as fair and reasonable management of a long-term project. In some cases, there is a public-private element to the dispute as the public sector is involved (either in licensing issues or as a regulatory authority). This may create some confusion in the roles and rights of the parties, which makes perfect sense when the interests of the investor (private equity) and the community or private parties are very diverse.

    For context, we might think of environmental, social and governance issues that are receiving serious attention from governments and regulators, given the impact on the planet and the people within the communities where they live. Mediation offers a way to resolve these conflicts by facilitating open communication between the parties involved. For instance, if a company is accused of breaching a country’s environmental regulations, mediation can provide a platform for the company and regulatory authorities to discuss the issues, share concerns, and negotiate a solution that satisfies both parties. Instead of pursuing punitive measures or resorting to lengthy legal battles, mediation can help parties find common ground and craft a solution that supports compliance while preserving business relationships.

    A concrete example is mining activities, which contribute greatly to the involvement of foreign entities in resource-rich countries, involving, on a large scale, both foreign and domestic interests, and potentially resulting in pollution and damage to the environment. In addition, there are various problems, especially the use of land for mining activities, which causes friction between mining companies, communities and local governments where mining activities take place. Since these projects take place over a long period of time and involve various interests of both private and public actors as well as communities, mediation is undoubtedly a good way to prevent disputes during the whole process of project development and implementation, offering in conflict situations not only a quick solution for both parties but also a fair and reasonable management of a project in the long term.

    Another tool, with elements of mediation, which is recommended for the successful completion of large projects, as for instance construction projects, are Dispute Boards, a panel of one to three members with extensive experience in the field of the contract, who accompany the execution of the contract until the work is completed on time and on budget. This method is not a pure and simple mediation, although it resembles it, because the Dispute Boards, in particular the so-called DAAB (Dispute Avoidance and Adjudication Board), permanently seek to avoid conflict and, if it arises, to encourage the parties to find a solution or to make it binding. I will go into more detail on this subject in another article.

    Hereby, we can also mention internal control and auditability towards third parties, be they customers or suppliers. The EU directive (CSDDD) puts the emphasis on indirect suppliers in the supply chain. It is therefore important that when establishing a business or investment partnership, all parties involved have a similar level of compliance with standards. In this regard, framework compliance agreements, which are compliance agreements that regulate the compliance obligations of both parties’ subject to a service contract, are very common.

    Aspects of compliance in such contracts may include, among others, anti-corruption policy, fee evasion, international sanctions, trainings, reporting requirements and ways to audit the compliance clauses agreed in the service contract, as well as the escalation clause to resolve disputes amicably, using the various existing ADR modes.

    In the context of commercial contracts, mediation is used to resolve disputes related to non-performance, late deliveries, payment problems, interpretations of clauses or any other dispute arising from a commercial agreement, including any aspect of the compliance agreement as referred to above.

    For an internationally developing company it would be advisable to promote mediation as the type of dispute resolution in conflicts with third parties. One way to promote mediation as an effective means of dispute resolution could be through a clause of voluntary submission to mediation in all transactions with third parties, followed by arbitration or submission to the courts of a certain jurisdiction, known as a tiered dispute resolution clause. These clauses provide for a gradual system of dispute resolution following various alternative methods of resolving disputes, usually culminating in arbitration if the outcome of the first alternative methods is unsuccessful.

    The choice of conflict resolution through mediation is a ‘win-win solution’, whose confidentiality is guaranteed in the face of public attention. Based on these advantages, mediation is considered more suitable to be implemented (agreed, including with the escalation clause) in a contract.

    Challenges of Mediation in International Contract Disputes

    Despite its many advantages, mediation is not without its challenges. Some of the key obstacles include:

    Lack of Enforcement Mechanisms: Mediation agreements are typically non-binding, meaning that parties are not legally required to adhere to the terms of the settlement. While mediation can result in a mutually agreed-upon solution, enforcing the agreement may require the parties to enter into further negotiations or even resort to litigation if one side fails to honour the agreement.

    Cultural and Language Barriers: In international contract disputes, cultural differences and language barriers can complicate the mediation process. It is important to select mediators who have experience with cross-cultural communication and who understand the legal systems involved. Without such expertise, the mediation process may be ineffective.

    Reluctance to Mediate: Some parties may be reluctant to mediate, especially if they perceive it as a sign of weakness or if they are unfamiliar with the process. This reluctance can be overcome with proper education and a clear understanding of the benefits of mediation.

    Although we can say that there is a growth of mediation around the world and the level of satisfaction of the use of mediation is based on its core values, which are impartiality, confidentiality and self-determination, the promotion of the mediation is still an important challenge.

    Conclusion

    In the case of internal compliance, mediation usually takes a more reactive role, i.e. when the conflict has already surfaced within the company or organisation; whereas, in the case of third party compliance, mediation takes a preventive role, such as in the case of Dispute Boards, although it also helps to resolve a commercial conflict between parties who wish to continue to maintain a business relationship. In both cases the objective is the same, to try to find common ground between the interests of the parties in order to resolve or avoid a conflict that could lead the parties to a legal dispute.

    As international trade continues to grow and the complexity of global regulations increases, businesses and organizations can benefit from adopting mediation as a strategic method for resolving conflicts. By fostering cooperation and understanding, mediation can help build stronger, more resilient business relationships and ensure long-term success in a global marketplace.

    Companies need to adhere to their own compliance programmes, but also to the programme of their customers, suppliers or banks with whom they collaborate. Not only is there a need for expertise to know the legal framework applicable to the industry, but there is also a need for conflict resolution when conflicts arise or even to act pre-emptively. Legal battles are expensive, time-consuming and damaging to business relationships. Many jurisdictions and industries are already demanding an obligation for parties to exhaust alternative dispute resolution methods before moving to the litigation phase.

    El arbitraje es un procedimiento para resolver los conflictos entre las partes que tiene gran éxito en el sistema legal anglosajón. Y bastante menos en nuestro país.

    Tiene ventajas e inconvenientes; es más caro que los Tribunales, pero es mucho más rápido; y la velocidad es esencial para que la justicia sea tal.

    Típicamente un arbitraje dura seis meses más un par de ellos para el nombramiento del árbitro; en total, en 8 meses puede estar definitivamente resuelto un conflicto, por importante y difícil que pueda ser.

    Por comparar con los Tribunales, en España hoy debemos contar con unos 18 meses de media para tener sentencia en primera instancia y otro tanto para el recurso de apelación; sin contar con posible recurso ante el Tribunal Supremo.

    La piedra angular sobre la que descansa el arbitraje es que el laudo del árbitro es final y definitivo y no admite revisión ni recurso; esta afirmación tiene determinadas excepciones fundamentalmente de carácter formal o procedimental: básicamente, la legalidad del convenio arbitral, la arbitrabilidad de la materia y la regularidad procedimental en el desarrollo del procedimiento arbitral. Estos vicios o defectos pueden ser atacados a través de un recurso de anulación del que si entiende la jurisdicción ordinaria.

    Pero además de los posibles defectos “formales”, la acción de anulación del laudo puede apoyarse en la denuncia de una infracción del “orden público” que el Tribunal Constitucional ha definido y perfilado como “aquellos principios jurídicos públicos y privados, políticos, morales y económicos que son absolutamente obligatorios para la conservación de la sociedad en un pueblo y en una época determinada”.

    Como esta definición de “orden público” es, indudablemente, amplia e inconcreta, el recurso a la vulneración del orden público como herramienta para declarar la nulidad de los laudos por la jurisdicción ordinaria, ha producido un efecto de “desbordamiento” que ha exigido, en palabras del Tribunal Constitucional “llevar a cabo una interpretación restrictiva del misma so pena de vulnerar la autonomía de la voluntad de las partes y su renuncia a la tutela jurisdiccional”.

    Así lo ha proclamado dicho Tribunal en la muy importante sentencia de 15 de febrero pasado que motiva esta nota.

    En estos últimos años el Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Madrid ha recurrido al argumento del “orden público” de manera extensiva y “desbordada” para anular laudos y “suplir al tribunal arbitral en su función de aplicar el derecho”, convirtiéndose en “una segunda instancia revisora de los hechos y derechos aplicados en el laudo, un mecanismo de control de la correcta aplicación de la jurisprudencia”.

    Y esta interpretación del orden público expansiva y “desbordada” como herramienta para anular laudos por parte del TSJM se había convertido en un grave problema para la institución arbitral y para la confianza de los contratantes a la hora de incluir convenios arbitrales en sus contratos; el principio de que el laudo era la solución definitiva y final al conflicto que pretende resolver, salvo por infracciones procedimentales o infracción del orden publico limitado a aquellos casos en los que el laudo fuera arbitrario, ilógico, absurdo o irracional, quedaba en entredicho y suponía un elemento claramente disuasorio a la hora de que los contratantes decidieran resolver sus discrepancias por medio de arbitraje.

    Pues bien, el Tribunal Constitucional de manera rotunda y explicita, repitiendo lo que ya adelantó en su sentencia de junio del año pasado, confirma que la necesidad de que el laudo no contravenga el orden público, no puede traer como consecuencia que el órgano judicial supla al árbitro en su función de aplicación del derecho, ni puede convertirse en una segunda instancia revisora de los hechos y de los fundamentos de derecho aplicados en el laudo ni un mecanismo de control de la correcta aplicación de la jurisprudencia.

    Prima el principio de la autonomía de la voluntad de las partes; y ello significa que cuando existe sometimiento a arbitraje, las partes han convenido que debe ser a través de ese cauce como han de resolverse las controversias entre ellas, mediante la decisión del arbitro que solo  podrá ser anulada a través de los estrictos cauces que la propia Ley de Arbitraje regula; insistimos, por razones procedimentales o por vulnerar el orden público en la interpretación restringida que explica la sentencia que comentamos; pero en ningún caso, a modo de una segunda instancia donde se re -evalúen de nuevo los hechos y los fundamentos de derecho aplicados.

    En suma, el arbitraje español está de enhorabuena, y podrá recuperar el impulso que le hizo perder, en parte, la interpretación extensiva del orden público que defendían algunos Tribunales Superiores de Justicia. A partir de ahora los Tribunales no podrán soslayar la interpretación del Tribunal Constitucional que supone un soplo de aire fresco para el arbitraje español.

    In an important and very reasoned judgment delivered by the Court of Cassation of France on September 30, 2020, relating to the enforceability of arbitration clauses in international consumer contracts, the Supreme Court judged that these clauses must be considered unfair and cannot be opposed to consumers.  

    The Supreme Court traditionally insisted on the priority given to the arbitrator to decide on his own jurisdiction, laid down in Article 1448 of the Code of Civil Procedure (principle known as «competence-competence», Jaguar, Civ. 1re, May 21, 1997, nos. 95-11.429 and 95-11.427). 

    The ECJ expressed its hostility towards such clauses when they are opposed to consumers. In Mostaza Claro (C-168/05), it referred to the internal laws of member states, while considering that the procedural modalities offered by states should not “make it impossible in practice or excessively difficult to exercise the rights conferred by public order to consumers (“Directive 93/13, concerning unfair terms in consumer contracts, must be interpreted as meaning that a national court seized of an action for annulment of an arbitration award must determine whether the arbitration agreement is void and annul that award where that agreement contains an unfair term, even though the consumer has not pleaded that invalidity in the course of the arbitration proceedings, but only in that of the action for annulment”).  

    It therefore referred to the national judge the right to implement its legislation on unfair terms, and therefore to decide, on a case-by-case basis, whether the arbitration clause should be considered unfair. This is what the Court of Cassation decided, ruling out the case-by-case method, and considering that in any event such a clause must be excluded in relations with consumers.  

    The Court of Cassation adopted the same solution in international employment contracts, where it traditionally considers that arbitration clauses contained in international employment contracts are enforceable against employee (Soc. 16 Feb. 1999, n ° 96-40.643). 

    The Supreme Court, although traditionally very favourable to arbitration, gradually builds up a set of specific exceptions to ensure the protection of the «weak» party.

    Unfair commercial behaviours between professionals are sanctioned in Sections L442-1 and seq. of the French Commercial Code. French Courts tend to consider that those dispositions of the Commercial Code are mandatory, in particular Section L442-1, II of the Code on abrupt termination of commercial relationships. Based on this section, an operator can be held liable if he terminates a commercial relationship without respecting a prior notice which duration depends on the duration of the relationship.

    Although this is considered to be a mandatory law, the French Supreme Court considers that it does not preclude to bring a dispute before foreign Courts in compliance with a jurisdiction clause (Civ.1, 8 July 2010, Doga, n°09-67013). Moreover, Courts have ruled for a long time now that arbitrators are entitled to apply national mandatory laws (Court of Appeal of Paris, 19 March 1993, Labinal, n°9221091). In the case Doga above quoted, the Court concluded that arbitrators are also entitled to apply Sections 442-1, II of the Commercial Code related to the conditions of termination of commercial relationship. Therefore, if a contract contains an arbitration clause, the judge is obliged to give priority to the arbitrators to decide on their own jurisdiction to decide on the case (principle « compétence-compétence ») in conformity with Section 1465 of the French Procedural Code. This solution was confirmed in a recent decision rendered on 5 September 2019 by the Court of Appeal of Paris in  Charlivari v. Sté Equivalanza, n°17/03703.

    It is noteworthy to underline that two sets of sanctions are considered under Sections 442-1 and seq. of the Commercial Code: the first sanction allows the victim of unfair practice to seek damages (for instance for abrupt termination of commercial relationship) against the author of unfair practices;  the second sanction is decided by the public administration, under the authority of the Ministry of Economics : the Ministry is entitled to bring the case to Courts, which can then decide to fine the party who is liable of unfair practices (the fine can be up to 5% of the turnover made in France by the person liable or 5 Million EUR).

    Therefore, one single matter can give rise to two procedures at the same time, the first one initiated by the victim and the second one at the request of the Ministry of Economics (Section L442-4 of the Code). In a case Apple v. Ministre de l’Economie, the Supreme Court (Civ.1, 6 juillet 2016, n° 15-21811) considered that the action of the Ministry of Economics cannot be decided by arbitrators, even if the contract contains an arbitration clause, because of the specificity of this action, which is not based on the contract by itself but on powers that the Ministry draws from the law.

    Therefore, a clear distinction must be made between the two procedures: one is subject to the application of the dispute resolution clause (either national Courts, even foreign, or arbitration tribunals), when damages are sought from the author of unfair practices, including abrupt termination; the other one can be brought only before French national Courts, and the dispute resolution clause has no effect, in cases which are brought by the Ministry of Economics for administrative sanctions against the same author.

    El procedimiento arbitral en España se caracteriza, y constituye una de sus grandes ventajas, por la dificultad de anular o revocar judicialmente el laudo; las partes saben que el laudo que se dicte es en la mayoría de los casos firme y definitivo y pone punto final al conflicto.

    El art. 41 de la Ley de Arbitraje únicamente permite la anulación del laudo por razones de forma (inexistencia o invalidez del convenio arbitral, falta de notificación a alguna de las partes sobre la designación del árbitro o de las actuaciones arbitrales, indebida designación de los árbitros o que los árbitros hayan resuelto sobre materias que no eran o no podían ser objeto de arbitraje por imperio de la ley). Y adicionalmente el laudo también es anulable cuando es contrario al “orden público”.

    Que cosa sea el “orden público” como para dar lugar, en caso de vulneración, a la anulación del laudo, es cuestión que de siempre ha sido controvertida y debatida; ya en la Convención de Nueva York de 1958 se alude el “orden público” como causa de denegación del reconocimiento de laudos extranjeros. Como recuerda el Tribunal Constitucional (“TC”) en la sentencia que comentamos, citando su propia jurisprudencia, “el orden público material es el conjunto de principios jurídicos públicos y privados, políticos, morales y económicos que son absolutamente obligatorios para la conservación de la sociedad en un pueblo y en una época determinada y el orden público procesal se configura como el conjunto de formalidades y principios necesarios de nuestro ordenamiento jurídico procesal y solo el arbitraje que contradiga alguno o algunos de tales principios podrá ser tachado de nulo por vulneración del orden público”.

    A título de ejemplo, durante 2018 se presentaron 38 demandas de anulación de laudos ante los Tribunales Superiores de Justicia (“TSJ”) de los que 31 se fundamentaban en vulneración del orden público; resultaron estimadas 8 de las demandas (21%), 5 por vulneración del orden público y 3 por invalidez del convenio arbitral.

    El TSJ de Madrid ha venido manteniendo en los últimos tiempos una interpretación muy “expansiva” del orden público, lo que ha generado dudas y temores en las instituciones y Cortes Arbitrales, por el efecto disuasorio que dicha posición podría tener a la hora de elegir Madrid como sede de arbitrajes, nacionales o internacionales.

    Y en la línea interpretativa a la que nos referimos, el TSJ de Madrid ha mantenido el siguiente y sorprendente criterio: dictado un laudo e interpuesta demanda de anulación por una de las partes, los litigantes alcanzaron un acuerdo extrajudicial y solicitaron conjuntamente  el archivo de la demanda de anulación; es decir, ambos daban el laudo por bueno y definitivo; el TSJ rechazó la petición y siguió adelante hasta dictar sentencia anulando el laudo, argumentando que como la demanda de anulación se basaba en la infracción del orden público, entonces ya la materia no era disponible por las partes y no era, en opinión del Tribunal, susceptible de transacción o renuncia.

    No era esta la primera vez que el TSJ adoptaba esta postura: impetrada la anulación de un laudo por ser contrario al “orden público”, las partes ya no tenían la posibilidad de transar y renunciar a la demanda de anulación.

    Por primera vez el asunto ha llegado al Tribunal Constitucional (TC): en un reciente fallo del 15 de junio de 2020, el TC ha sido claro y rotundo; recuerda en su sentencia que el proceso civil se fundamenta en el principio de “disposición de las partes para regular sus intereses privados, es decir, para iniciar la actividad jurisdiccional, determinar el objeto del proceso y ponerle fin cuando estimen conveniente”. Es lo que llamamos “justicia rogada”; y este principio aplica no solo a los procedimientos civiles ante los tribunales ordinarios sino también a los procedimientos arbitrales; asimismo afirma la sentencia que el arbitraje está configurado por la Ley como un mecanismo heterónomo de resolución de conflictos al que es consustancial la mínima intervención de los órganos judiciales a favor de la autonomía de la voluntad.

    Y concluye sentando que la acción de anulación debe ser entendida como un proceso de control externo sobre el laudo que no permite una decisión sobre el fondo de la decisión de los árbitros, al estar tasadas las causas, lo que justifica que “el control de los laudos tenga carácter limitado y solo pueda obtenerse la anulación del laudo en casos excepcionales”.

    En suma, entiende y proclama el TC que es contrario al derecho a la tutela judicial efectiva que protege el art. 24 de la Constitución la negativa del Tribunal a reconocer la virtualidad de un acuerdo alcanzado entre los litigantes con fundamento en el poder dispositivo de las partes sin que medie norma prohibitiva que así lo autorice e imponiendo una decisión que subvierte el principio dispositivo o de “justicia rogada” que inspira el proceso civil; por lo que concede el amparo solicitado y ordena retrotraer las actuaciones al momento anterior al auto que denegó virtualidad a la solicitud conjunta de archivo para que el TSJ dicte otra resolución acompasada al criterio del TC.

    En suma, no podrá ya nunca más el TSJM impedir a los litigantes transar y poner fin a una demanda de anulación de laudo (como ocurre pacífica y habitualmente con los recursos de apelación o de casación) y además deberá tomar en consideración en adelante la interpretación restrictiva del concepto de orden público que ha establecido el TC en esta importante sentencia. En efecto, el arbitraje español sale muy reforzado con esta sentencia del TC.

    Are arbitration and jurisdiction clauses contained in insurance contracts enforceable against a third party which is acting directly against the insurer in third party liability insurances?

    Such direct action is admitted by French law in liability insurances, as defined in article 124-3 of the Insurance Code.

    In just a few months two radically different approaches have been taken by the French Cour de cassation (Civ.1, 19 December 2018, n°17-28.951) and the ECJ in Assens Havn v. Navigator Management UK Ltd (13 July 2017, C-368/16) and KABEG v. MMA IARD (20 July 2017, C-340/16).

    The case submitted to the Cour de cassation represented a third party exercising a direct right of action before French Courts against the insurer of a floating barge which had caused him a damage. The Supreme Court accepted that the insurer could validly oppose the arbitration clause, which was in the policy against the third party, and therefore judged that French Court had no jurisdiction to decide on the case. The Supreme Court applied the well-established principle of Compétence-Compétence – materialized in article 1448 of the French Code de Procédure Civile – to stay the case, considering that the arbitration clause could not be set aside. The Court therefore judged that the applicability of the arbitration clause should be determined by the arbitrators by priority.

    A year before, the ECJ had ruled in the opposite direction in a case where a jurisdiction clause was applicable in the insurance policy. In Assens Havn v. Navigator Management UK Ltd, the ECJ stated that the clause could not be opposed to the third party acting directly against the insurer. According to the Court, the insurers’ liability towards the insured has a contractual nature when based on the policy, whereas it is extra-contractual when the liability is based on a direct action from a third party. In a previous ruling the Court had considered (Sté financière et industrielle du Peloux (12 May 2005, C-112/03) that the jurisdiction clause cannot be opposed to the beneficiary of an insurance policy if he is not the policyholder (for instance in a collective insurance).

    One sees a clear difference in treatment between arbitration clause and jurisdiction clause when it comes to deciding on their opposability to the victim exercising a direct action against the insurer.

    Article 2061 paragraph 2 of the Civil Code states that an arbitration cannot be opposed to a party which has not contracted for the purpose of its business activity. The French Cour de cassation grounded its decision on the fact that the clauses of the main contract could be opposed to the third party. If the latter was entitled to apply the insurance contract, it was therefore entitled to invoke article 2061 paragraph 2 of the Civil Code.

    On 29 March 2019 new amendments to the federal law “On arbitration in the Russian Federation” entered into force. This law regulates the order of establishment and activities of arbitration courts and permanently acting arbitration institutions (PAAI) in Russia and applies to resolution of both international and local disputes by arbitration in Russia.

    The key amendments relate to granting of rights to foreign arbitration centers to perform functions of PAAIs in Russia. Earlier such rights were granted by the government, but as from 29 March 2019 such functions were transferred to the Ministry of Justice. Ministry of Justice grants the rights to perform functions of PAAIs in Russia to foreign arbitration centers based on recommendations received from the Council on improvement of arbitrations.

    As of 31 March 2019, there are only 4 (four) PAAIs authorized to administer disputes by arbitration in Russia and all of them are Russian organizations. In accordance with the latest news the Hong Kong International Arbitration Center (HKIAC) is the first international arbitration center that has recently received a recommendation from the Council on improvement of arbitrations to establish PAAI in Russia and has been approved by the Ministry of Justice to establish PAAI in Russia. In accordance with the law an arbitration center is included in the list of PAAIs in Russia within 15 days from the date of approval by the Council, i.e. by the end of April 2019 HKIAC could become the first international arbitration center authorized to administer international disputes in Russia.

    Another issue that should be carefully considered by choosing an arbitration center relate to resolution of disputes between companies established in Russia (local disputes) by international arbitration centers not included in the list of PAAIs in Russia and not authorized to consider local disputes in Russia.

    Though there is no direct prohibition established by the Russian law to settle disputes between Russian companies by foreign arbitration centers with the seat of arbitration outside of Russia, the possibility of referral of local disputes to foreign arbitration centers is still questionable. In one of the court decisions that caused disputes in legal community (case# А40-219464/16-52-430) the Russian court of first instance ruled that resolution of local disputes by the foreign arbitration institutions violates public policy in Russia. Notwithstanding the fact that such ruling was dismissed by the higher court instance the risk that the Russian courts might deny recognition of awards of foreign arbitration institutions not included in the list of PAAIs in Russia and not authorized to consider local disputes in Russia cannot be excluded.

    Therefore, in situations when the disputes arise between companies established in Russia it would be reasonable to choose arbitration institution included in the list of PAAIs in Russia and authorized to administer local disputes in Russia or, alternatively, agree on resolution of disputes by the Russian commercial courts.

    Takeaways

    • if you agree in international contracts that the seat of arbitration is in Russia, it would be reasonable to choose the arbitration center included in the list of PAAIs in Russia and authorized to resolve international disputes in Russia.
    • If you agree in local contracts to resolve disputes by arbitration, it would be reasonable to choose the arbitration center included in the list of PAAIs in Russia and authorized to resolve local disputes in Russia.

    Sonia García Navasquillo

    Áreas de práctica

    • Comercio internacional
    • Compliance
    • Derecho Societario
    • Mediación
    Contáctanos Sonia

    Contacta con Sonia





      Lea la política de privacidad de Legalmondo.
      Este sitio está protegido por reCAPTCHA y se aplican la Política de privacidad de Google y los Términos de servicio.

      España – Revisión de laudos arbitrales y orden público

      17 de marzo de 2021

      • España
      • Arbitraje

      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.

      Summary: Companies with international projection and global presence can count on mediation and its benefits in the different contexts of their business, both in the compliance of the code of conduct and internal rules as well as in the compliance of contracts and projects with third parties or public authorities. In the same way, it facilitates access to a saturated justice system, while at the same time improving the relationship between the parties, as they do not have to face the wear and tear of the judicial phase, which leads to emotional wear and tear.

      I will focus on the intersection between compliance and mediation, as international corporations are increasingly interested in the potential of Mediation applied to compliance frameworks. Although there are a few important challenges that we need to mention, the benefits of international mediation are clear: costs savings, quick solutions and a good understanding between the parties. International mediation and compliance go hand in hand and, although they may not seem to have much in common, they complement each other. The purpose of this article is to illustrate with some practical examples the advantages of compliance mediation for small and medium-sized enterprises operating internationally, in order to demonstrate the potential that exists in this combination.

      Mediation is a form of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) that involves the intervention of a neutral third party, known as the mediator, to help disputing parties reach a mutually acceptable agreement. Unlike litigation, which involves a judge making a binding decision, mediation allows the parties to control the outcome, facilitating a more collaborative and flexible approach to resolving disputes.

      In the context of compliance issues and international contracts, mediation offers a unique advantage by addressing both legal and non-legal aspects of disputes, such as cultural differences, business practices, and organizational relationships. This flexibility is particularly important when dealing with international contracts, where cross-cultural understanding and respect for diverse legal systems are essential.

      The key is still the same recipe as the initial negotiation of a contract. The parties objectively and in a neutral atmosphere and collaborative approach, find ‘solutions’ to their disagreements where both parties win. The so-called win-win is still the best scenario in which the parties should meet again in dispute resolution. I always insist on the word ‘reconnect’ because of its positive connotation in any relationship. Mediation allows the parties to negotiate a mutually acceptable outcome, preserving the relationship between them, with the additional value of cost and time efficiencies and confidentiality guaranteed throughout the process.

      Mediation benefits compliance programmes in two keyways.

      Resolving internal compliance issues

      This is accomplished through facilitating communication and conflict resolution among employees, promoting a culture of dialogue, transparency and accountability. When a company uses mediation to resolve conflicts arising from internal compliance-related situations, it helps to prevent a conflict from escalating in proportions both in the form of legal action and disputes that may involve the public administration.

      A clear example is conflicts related to the code of conduct, where disputes often arise at the HR level. Another example is that arising from conflicts of interest. In both cases the connection lies in the common goal of promoting ethical behaviour, improving communication and resolving conflicts in a way that helps the employee and the company to follow its internal rules and achieve the required standards.

      Mediation opens a space for dialogue and amicable conflict resolution, facilitating employees’ professional and personal growth in a sustained way over time.

      Another example can be conflicts related to cross-border labour issues applicable to the same company, whether private, non-governmental organisation or conflicts between private and public companies. The reasons for the conflict may be related to harassment issues or pay inequality issues. For example, the internal pay system within an international organisation should consider the following elements:

      • Remuneration represents by far the most important and controversial element of the employment relationship and is of equal interest to the employer and the employee.
      • The remuneration system should be based on and consistent with the principles of the organisation.
      • The criteria for determining remuneration should be objective and measurable.
      • The system should be equitable.

      Conflicts often arise around these elements and companies should be transparent, through comprehensive policies, about their position on non-discrimination, harassment or inclusion of their employees within their organisation and the markets in which they operate.

      Mediation can be a channel to help find solutions to equality and non-discrimination issues between employees within the same organisation. It also obliges companies to consider the standards of international legislation (e.g. CSRD) when implementing their policies. We are seeing that it is not a ‘nice to have’ but a ‘must have’.

      Resolving disputes with external parties

      Mediation can be used to enforce commercial contracts or in projects. It helps prevent disputes between companies or between companies and regulators, foster better relations, and ensure compliance standards are met without resorting to litigation. Mediation promotes cooperation between the parties and helps reduce the risk of future contractual violations.

      A clear example of the benefits of the use of mediation in compliance arises in the international context where legal certainty is required for both parties, as well as fair and reasonable management of a long-term project. In some cases, there is a public-private element to the dispute as the public sector is involved (either in licensing issues or as a regulatory authority). This may create some confusion in the roles and rights of the parties, which makes perfect sense when the interests of the investor (private equity) and the community or private parties are very diverse.

      For context, we might think of environmental, social and governance issues that are receiving serious attention from governments and regulators, given the impact on the planet and the people within the communities where they live. Mediation offers a way to resolve these conflicts by facilitating open communication between the parties involved. For instance, if a company is accused of breaching a country’s environmental regulations, mediation can provide a platform for the company and regulatory authorities to discuss the issues, share concerns, and negotiate a solution that satisfies both parties. Instead of pursuing punitive measures or resorting to lengthy legal battles, mediation can help parties find common ground and craft a solution that supports compliance while preserving business relationships.

      A concrete example is mining activities, which contribute greatly to the involvement of foreign entities in resource-rich countries, involving, on a large scale, both foreign and domestic interests, and potentially resulting in pollution and damage to the environment. In addition, there are various problems, especially the use of land for mining activities, which causes friction between mining companies, communities and local governments where mining activities take place. Since these projects take place over a long period of time and involve various interests of both private and public actors as well as communities, mediation is undoubtedly a good way to prevent disputes during the whole process of project development and implementation, offering in conflict situations not only a quick solution for both parties but also a fair and reasonable management of a project in the long term.

      Another tool, with elements of mediation, which is recommended for the successful completion of large projects, as for instance construction projects, are Dispute Boards, a panel of one to three members with extensive experience in the field of the contract, who accompany the execution of the contract until the work is completed on time and on budget. This method is not a pure and simple mediation, although it resembles it, because the Dispute Boards, in particular the so-called DAAB (Dispute Avoidance and Adjudication Board), permanently seek to avoid conflict and, if it arises, to encourage the parties to find a solution or to make it binding. I will go into more detail on this subject in another article.

      Hereby, we can also mention internal control and auditability towards third parties, be they customers or suppliers. The EU directive (CSDDD) puts the emphasis on indirect suppliers in the supply chain. It is therefore important that when establishing a business or investment partnership, all parties involved have a similar level of compliance with standards. In this regard, framework compliance agreements, which are compliance agreements that regulate the compliance obligations of both parties’ subject to a service contract, are very common.

      Aspects of compliance in such contracts may include, among others, anti-corruption policy, fee evasion, international sanctions, trainings, reporting requirements and ways to audit the compliance clauses agreed in the service contract, as well as the escalation clause to resolve disputes amicably, using the various existing ADR modes.

      In the context of commercial contracts, mediation is used to resolve disputes related to non-performance, late deliveries, payment problems, interpretations of clauses or any other dispute arising from a commercial agreement, including any aspect of the compliance agreement as referred to above.

      For an internationally developing company it would be advisable to promote mediation as the type of dispute resolution in conflicts with third parties. One way to promote mediation as an effective means of dispute resolution could be through a clause of voluntary submission to mediation in all transactions with third parties, followed by arbitration or submission to the courts of a certain jurisdiction, known as a tiered dispute resolution clause. These clauses provide for a gradual system of dispute resolution following various alternative methods of resolving disputes, usually culminating in arbitration if the outcome of the first alternative methods is unsuccessful.

      The choice of conflict resolution through mediation is a ‘win-win solution’, whose confidentiality is guaranteed in the face of public attention. Based on these advantages, mediation is considered more suitable to be implemented (agreed, including with the escalation clause) in a contract.

      Challenges of Mediation in International Contract Disputes

      Despite its many advantages, mediation is not without its challenges. Some of the key obstacles include:

      Lack of Enforcement Mechanisms: Mediation agreements are typically non-binding, meaning that parties are not legally required to adhere to the terms of the settlement. While mediation can result in a mutually agreed-upon solution, enforcing the agreement may require the parties to enter into further negotiations or even resort to litigation if one side fails to honour the agreement.

      Cultural and Language Barriers: In international contract disputes, cultural differences and language barriers can complicate the mediation process. It is important to select mediators who have experience with cross-cultural communication and who understand the legal systems involved. Without such expertise, the mediation process may be ineffective.

      Reluctance to Mediate: Some parties may be reluctant to mediate, especially if they perceive it as a sign of weakness or if they are unfamiliar with the process. This reluctance can be overcome with proper education and a clear understanding of the benefits of mediation.

      Although we can say that there is a growth of mediation around the world and the level of satisfaction of the use of mediation is based on its core values, which are impartiality, confidentiality and self-determination, the promotion of the mediation is still an important challenge.

      Conclusion

      In the case of internal compliance, mediation usually takes a more reactive role, i.e. when the conflict has already surfaced within the company or organisation; whereas, in the case of third party compliance, mediation takes a preventive role, such as in the case of Dispute Boards, although it also helps to resolve a commercial conflict between parties who wish to continue to maintain a business relationship. In both cases the objective is the same, to try to find common ground between the interests of the parties in order to resolve or avoid a conflict that could lead the parties to a legal dispute.

      As international trade continues to grow and the complexity of global regulations increases, businesses and organizations can benefit from adopting mediation as a strategic method for resolving conflicts. By fostering cooperation and understanding, mediation can help build stronger, more resilient business relationships and ensure long-term success in a global marketplace.

      Companies need to adhere to their own compliance programmes, but also to the programme of their customers, suppliers or banks with whom they collaborate. Not only is there a need for expertise to know the legal framework applicable to the industry, but there is also a need for conflict resolution when conflicts arise or even to act pre-emptively. Legal battles are expensive, time-consuming and damaging to business relationships. Many jurisdictions and industries are already demanding an obligation for parties to exhaust alternative dispute resolution methods before moving to the litigation phase.

      El arbitraje es un procedimiento para resolver los conflictos entre las partes que tiene gran éxito en el sistema legal anglosajón. Y bastante menos en nuestro país.

      Tiene ventajas e inconvenientes; es más caro que los Tribunales, pero es mucho más rápido; y la velocidad es esencial para que la justicia sea tal.

      Típicamente un arbitraje dura seis meses más un par de ellos para el nombramiento del árbitro; en total, en 8 meses puede estar definitivamente resuelto un conflicto, por importante y difícil que pueda ser.

      Por comparar con los Tribunales, en España hoy debemos contar con unos 18 meses de media para tener sentencia en primera instancia y otro tanto para el recurso de apelación; sin contar con posible recurso ante el Tribunal Supremo.

      La piedra angular sobre la que descansa el arbitraje es que el laudo del árbitro es final y definitivo y no admite revisión ni recurso; esta afirmación tiene determinadas excepciones fundamentalmente de carácter formal o procedimental: básicamente, la legalidad del convenio arbitral, la arbitrabilidad de la materia y la regularidad procedimental en el desarrollo del procedimiento arbitral. Estos vicios o defectos pueden ser atacados a través de un recurso de anulación del que si entiende la jurisdicción ordinaria.

      Pero además de los posibles defectos “formales”, la acción de anulación del laudo puede apoyarse en la denuncia de una infracción del “orden público” que el Tribunal Constitucional ha definido y perfilado como “aquellos principios jurídicos públicos y privados, políticos, morales y económicos que son absolutamente obligatorios para la conservación de la sociedad en un pueblo y en una época determinada”.

      Como esta definición de “orden público” es, indudablemente, amplia e inconcreta, el recurso a la vulneración del orden público como herramienta para declarar la nulidad de los laudos por la jurisdicción ordinaria, ha producido un efecto de “desbordamiento” que ha exigido, en palabras del Tribunal Constitucional “llevar a cabo una interpretación restrictiva del misma so pena de vulnerar la autonomía de la voluntad de las partes y su renuncia a la tutela jurisdiccional”.

      Así lo ha proclamado dicho Tribunal en la muy importante sentencia de 15 de febrero pasado que motiva esta nota.

      En estos últimos años el Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Madrid ha recurrido al argumento del “orden público” de manera extensiva y “desbordada” para anular laudos y “suplir al tribunal arbitral en su función de aplicar el derecho”, convirtiéndose en “una segunda instancia revisora de los hechos y derechos aplicados en el laudo, un mecanismo de control de la correcta aplicación de la jurisprudencia”.

      Y esta interpretación del orden público expansiva y “desbordada” como herramienta para anular laudos por parte del TSJM se había convertido en un grave problema para la institución arbitral y para la confianza de los contratantes a la hora de incluir convenios arbitrales en sus contratos; el principio de que el laudo era la solución definitiva y final al conflicto que pretende resolver, salvo por infracciones procedimentales o infracción del orden publico limitado a aquellos casos en los que el laudo fuera arbitrario, ilógico, absurdo o irracional, quedaba en entredicho y suponía un elemento claramente disuasorio a la hora de que los contratantes decidieran resolver sus discrepancias por medio de arbitraje.

      Pues bien, el Tribunal Constitucional de manera rotunda y explicita, repitiendo lo que ya adelantó en su sentencia de junio del año pasado, confirma que la necesidad de que el laudo no contravenga el orden público, no puede traer como consecuencia que el órgano judicial supla al árbitro en su función de aplicación del derecho, ni puede convertirse en una segunda instancia revisora de los hechos y de los fundamentos de derecho aplicados en el laudo ni un mecanismo de control de la correcta aplicación de la jurisprudencia.

      Prima el principio de la autonomía de la voluntad de las partes; y ello significa que cuando existe sometimiento a arbitraje, las partes han convenido que debe ser a través de ese cauce como han de resolverse las controversias entre ellas, mediante la decisión del arbitro que solo  podrá ser anulada a través de los estrictos cauces que la propia Ley de Arbitraje regula; insistimos, por razones procedimentales o por vulnerar el orden público en la interpretación restringida que explica la sentencia que comentamos; pero en ningún caso, a modo de una segunda instancia donde se re -evalúen de nuevo los hechos y los fundamentos de derecho aplicados.

      En suma, el arbitraje español está de enhorabuena, y podrá recuperar el impulso que le hizo perder, en parte, la interpretación extensiva del orden público que defendían algunos Tribunales Superiores de Justicia. A partir de ahora los Tribunales no podrán soslayar la interpretación del Tribunal Constitucional que supone un soplo de aire fresco para el arbitraje español.

      In an important and very reasoned judgment delivered by the Court of Cassation of France on September 30, 2020, relating to the enforceability of arbitration clauses in international consumer contracts, the Supreme Court judged that these clauses must be considered unfair and cannot be opposed to consumers.  

      The Supreme Court traditionally insisted on the priority given to the arbitrator to decide on his own jurisdiction, laid down in Article 1448 of the Code of Civil Procedure (principle known as «competence-competence», Jaguar, Civ. 1re, May 21, 1997, nos. 95-11.429 and 95-11.427). 

      The ECJ expressed its hostility towards such clauses when they are opposed to consumers. In Mostaza Claro (C-168/05), it referred to the internal laws of member states, while considering that the procedural modalities offered by states should not “make it impossible in practice or excessively difficult to exercise the rights conferred by public order to consumers (“Directive 93/13, concerning unfair terms in consumer contracts, must be interpreted as meaning that a national court seized of an action for annulment of an arbitration award must determine whether the arbitration agreement is void and annul that award where that agreement contains an unfair term, even though the consumer has not pleaded that invalidity in the course of the arbitration proceedings, but only in that of the action for annulment”).  

      It therefore referred to the national judge the right to implement its legislation on unfair terms, and therefore to decide, on a case-by-case basis, whether the arbitration clause should be considered unfair. This is what the Court of Cassation decided, ruling out the case-by-case method, and considering that in any event such a clause must be excluded in relations with consumers.  

      The Court of Cassation adopted the same solution in international employment contracts, where it traditionally considers that arbitration clauses contained in international employment contracts are enforceable against employee (Soc. 16 Feb. 1999, n ° 96-40.643). 

      The Supreme Court, although traditionally very favourable to arbitration, gradually builds up a set of specific exceptions to ensure the protection of the «weak» party.

      Unfair commercial behaviours between professionals are sanctioned in Sections L442-1 and seq. of the French Commercial Code. French Courts tend to consider that those dispositions of the Commercial Code are mandatory, in particular Section L442-1, II of the Code on abrupt termination of commercial relationships. Based on this section, an operator can be held liable if he terminates a commercial relationship without respecting a prior notice which duration depends on the duration of the relationship.

      Although this is considered to be a mandatory law, the French Supreme Court considers that it does not preclude to bring a dispute before foreign Courts in compliance with a jurisdiction clause (Civ.1, 8 July 2010, Doga, n°09-67013). Moreover, Courts have ruled for a long time now that arbitrators are entitled to apply national mandatory laws (Court of Appeal of Paris, 19 March 1993, Labinal, n°9221091). In the case Doga above quoted, the Court concluded that arbitrators are also entitled to apply Sections 442-1, II of the Commercial Code related to the conditions of termination of commercial relationship. Therefore, if a contract contains an arbitration clause, the judge is obliged to give priority to the arbitrators to decide on their own jurisdiction to decide on the case (principle « compétence-compétence ») in conformity with Section 1465 of the French Procedural Code. This solution was confirmed in a recent decision rendered on 5 September 2019 by the Court of Appeal of Paris in  Charlivari v. Sté Equivalanza, n°17/03703.

      It is noteworthy to underline that two sets of sanctions are considered under Sections 442-1 and seq. of the Commercial Code: the first sanction allows the victim of unfair practice to seek damages (for instance for abrupt termination of commercial relationship) against the author of unfair practices;  the second sanction is decided by the public administration, under the authority of the Ministry of Economics : the Ministry is entitled to bring the case to Courts, which can then decide to fine the party who is liable of unfair practices (the fine can be up to 5% of the turnover made in France by the person liable or 5 Million EUR).

      Therefore, one single matter can give rise to two procedures at the same time, the first one initiated by the victim and the second one at the request of the Ministry of Economics (Section L442-4 of the Code). In a case Apple v. Ministre de l’Economie, the Supreme Court (Civ.1, 6 juillet 2016, n° 15-21811) considered that the action of the Ministry of Economics cannot be decided by arbitrators, even if the contract contains an arbitration clause, because of the specificity of this action, which is not based on the contract by itself but on powers that the Ministry draws from the law.

      Therefore, a clear distinction must be made between the two procedures: one is subject to the application of the dispute resolution clause (either national Courts, even foreign, or arbitration tribunals), when damages are sought from the author of unfair practices, including abrupt termination; the other one can be brought only before French national Courts, and the dispute resolution clause has no effect, in cases which are brought by the Ministry of Economics for administrative sanctions against the same author.

      El procedimiento arbitral en España se caracteriza, y constituye una de sus grandes ventajas, por la dificultad de anular o revocar judicialmente el laudo; las partes saben que el laudo que se dicte es en la mayoría de los casos firme y definitivo y pone punto final al conflicto.

      El art. 41 de la Ley de Arbitraje únicamente permite la anulación del laudo por razones de forma (inexistencia o invalidez del convenio arbitral, falta de notificación a alguna de las partes sobre la designación del árbitro o de las actuaciones arbitrales, indebida designación de los árbitros o que los árbitros hayan resuelto sobre materias que no eran o no podían ser objeto de arbitraje por imperio de la ley). Y adicionalmente el laudo también es anulable cuando es contrario al “orden público”.

      Que cosa sea el “orden público” como para dar lugar, en caso de vulneración, a la anulación del laudo, es cuestión que de siempre ha sido controvertida y debatida; ya en la Convención de Nueva York de 1958 se alude el “orden público” como causa de denegación del reconocimiento de laudos extranjeros. Como recuerda el Tribunal Constitucional (“TC”) en la sentencia que comentamos, citando su propia jurisprudencia, “el orden público material es el conjunto de principios jurídicos públicos y privados, políticos, morales y económicos que son absolutamente obligatorios para la conservación de la sociedad en un pueblo y en una época determinada y el orden público procesal se configura como el conjunto de formalidades y principios necesarios de nuestro ordenamiento jurídico procesal y solo el arbitraje que contradiga alguno o algunos de tales principios podrá ser tachado de nulo por vulneración del orden público”.

      A título de ejemplo, durante 2018 se presentaron 38 demandas de anulación de laudos ante los Tribunales Superiores de Justicia (“TSJ”) de los que 31 se fundamentaban en vulneración del orden público; resultaron estimadas 8 de las demandas (21%), 5 por vulneración del orden público y 3 por invalidez del convenio arbitral.

      El TSJ de Madrid ha venido manteniendo en los últimos tiempos una interpretación muy “expansiva” del orden público, lo que ha generado dudas y temores en las instituciones y Cortes Arbitrales, por el efecto disuasorio que dicha posición podría tener a la hora de elegir Madrid como sede de arbitrajes, nacionales o internacionales.

      Y en la línea interpretativa a la que nos referimos, el TSJ de Madrid ha mantenido el siguiente y sorprendente criterio: dictado un laudo e interpuesta demanda de anulación por una de las partes, los litigantes alcanzaron un acuerdo extrajudicial y solicitaron conjuntamente  el archivo de la demanda de anulación; es decir, ambos daban el laudo por bueno y definitivo; el TSJ rechazó la petición y siguió adelante hasta dictar sentencia anulando el laudo, argumentando que como la demanda de anulación se basaba en la infracción del orden público, entonces ya la materia no era disponible por las partes y no era, en opinión del Tribunal, susceptible de transacción o renuncia.

      No era esta la primera vez que el TSJ adoptaba esta postura: impetrada la anulación de un laudo por ser contrario al “orden público”, las partes ya no tenían la posibilidad de transar y renunciar a la demanda de anulación.

      Por primera vez el asunto ha llegado al Tribunal Constitucional (TC): en un reciente fallo del 15 de junio de 2020, el TC ha sido claro y rotundo; recuerda en su sentencia que el proceso civil se fundamenta en el principio de “disposición de las partes para regular sus intereses privados, es decir, para iniciar la actividad jurisdiccional, determinar el objeto del proceso y ponerle fin cuando estimen conveniente”. Es lo que llamamos “justicia rogada”; y este principio aplica no solo a los procedimientos civiles ante los tribunales ordinarios sino también a los procedimientos arbitrales; asimismo afirma la sentencia que el arbitraje está configurado por la Ley como un mecanismo heterónomo de resolución de conflictos al que es consustancial la mínima intervención de los órganos judiciales a favor de la autonomía de la voluntad.

      Y concluye sentando que la acción de anulación debe ser entendida como un proceso de control externo sobre el laudo que no permite una decisión sobre el fondo de la decisión de los árbitros, al estar tasadas las causas, lo que justifica que “el control de los laudos tenga carácter limitado y solo pueda obtenerse la anulación del laudo en casos excepcionales”.

      En suma, entiende y proclama el TC que es contrario al derecho a la tutela judicial efectiva que protege el art. 24 de la Constitución la negativa del Tribunal a reconocer la virtualidad de un acuerdo alcanzado entre los litigantes con fundamento en el poder dispositivo de las partes sin que medie norma prohibitiva que así lo autorice e imponiendo una decisión que subvierte el principio dispositivo o de “justicia rogada” que inspira el proceso civil; por lo que concede el amparo solicitado y ordena retrotraer las actuaciones al momento anterior al auto que denegó virtualidad a la solicitud conjunta de archivo para que el TSJ dicte otra resolución acompasada al criterio del TC.

      En suma, no podrá ya nunca más el TSJM impedir a los litigantes transar y poner fin a una demanda de anulación de laudo (como ocurre pacífica y habitualmente con los recursos de apelación o de casación) y además deberá tomar en consideración en adelante la interpretación restrictiva del concepto de orden público que ha establecido el TC en esta importante sentencia. En efecto, el arbitraje español sale muy reforzado con esta sentencia del TC.

      Are arbitration and jurisdiction clauses contained in insurance contracts enforceable against a third party which is acting directly against the insurer in third party liability insurances?

      Such direct action is admitted by French law in liability insurances, as defined in article 124-3 of the Insurance Code.

      In just a few months two radically different approaches have been taken by the French Cour de cassation (Civ.1, 19 December 2018, n°17-28.951) and the ECJ in Assens Havn v. Navigator Management UK Ltd (13 July 2017, C-368/16) and KABEG v. MMA IARD (20 July 2017, C-340/16).

      The case submitted to the Cour de cassation represented a third party exercising a direct right of action before French Courts against the insurer of a floating barge which had caused him a damage. The Supreme Court accepted that the insurer could validly oppose the arbitration clause, which was in the policy against the third party, and therefore judged that French Court had no jurisdiction to decide on the case. The Supreme Court applied the well-established principle of Compétence-Compétence – materialized in article 1448 of the French Code de Procédure Civile – to stay the case, considering that the arbitration clause could not be set aside. The Court therefore judged that the applicability of the arbitration clause should be determined by the arbitrators by priority.

      A year before, the ECJ had ruled in the opposite direction in a case where a jurisdiction clause was applicable in the insurance policy. In Assens Havn v. Navigator Management UK Ltd, the ECJ stated that the clause could not be opposed to the third party acting directly against the insurer. According to the Court, the insurers’ liability towards the insured has a contractual nature when based on the policy, whereas it is extra-contractual when the liability is based on a direct action from a third party. In a previous ruling the Court had considered (Sté financière et industrielle du Peloux (12 May 2005, C-112/03) that the jurisdiction clause cannot be opposed to the beneficiary of an insurance policy if he is not the policyholder (for instance in a collective insurance).

      One sees a clear difference in treatment between arbitration clause and jurisdiction clause when it comes to deciding on their opposability to the victim exercising a direct action against the insurer.

      Article 2061 paragraph 2 of the Civil Code states that an arbitration cannot be opposed to a party which has not contracted for the purpose of its business activity. The French Cour de cassation grounded its decision on the fact that the clauses of the main contract could be opposed to the third party. If the latter was entitled to apply the insurance contract, it was therefore entitled to invoke article 2061 paragraph 2 of the Civil Code.

      On 29 March 2019 new amendments to the federal law “On arbitration in the Russian Federation” entered into force. This law regulates the order of establishment and activities of arbitration courts and permanently acting arbitration institutions (PAAI) in Russia and applies to resolution of both international and local disputes by arbitration in Russia.

      The key amendments relate to granting of rights to foreign arbitration centers to perform functions of PAAIs in Russia. Earlier such rights were granted by the government, but as from 29 March 2019 such functions were transferred to the Ministry of Justice. Ministry of Justice grants the rights to perform functions of PAAIs in Russia to foreign arbitration centers based on recommendations received from the Council on improvement of arbitrations.

      As of 31 March 2019, there are only 4 (four) PAAIs authorized to administer disputes by arbitration in Russia and all of them are Russian organizations. In accordance with the latest news the Hong Kong International Arbitration Center (HKIAC) is the first international arbitration center that has recently received a recommendation from the Council on improvement of arbitrations to establish PAAI in Russia and has been approved by the Ministry of Justice to establish PAAI in Russia. In accordance with the law an arbitration center is included in the list of PAAIs in Russia within 15 days from the date of approval by the Council, i.e. by the end of April 2019 HKIAC could become the first international arbitration center authorized to administer international disputes in Russia.

      Another issue that should be carefully considered by choosing an arbitration center relate to resolution of disputes between companies established in Russia (local disputes) by international arbitration centers not included in the list of PAAIs in Russia and not authorized to consider local disputes in Russia.

      Though there is no direct prohibition established by the Russian law to settle disputes between Russian companies by foreign arbitration centers with the seat of arbitration outside of Russia, the possibility of referral of local disputes to foreign arbitration centers is still questionable. In one of the court decisions that caused disputes in legal community (case# А40-219464/16-52-430) the Russian court of first instance ruled that resolution of local disputes by the foreign arbitration institutions violates public policy in Russia. Notwithstanding the fact that such ruling was dismissed by the higher court instance the risk that the Russian courts might deny recognition of awards of foreign arbitration institutions not included in the list of PAAIs in Russia and not authorized to consider local disputes in Russia cannot be excluded.

      Therefore, in situations when the disputes arise between companies established in Russia it would be reasonable to choose arbitration institution included in the list of PAAIs in Russia and authorized to administer local disputes in Russia or, alternatively, agree on resolution of disputes by the Russian commercial courts.

      Takeaways

      • if you agree in international contracts that the seat of arbitration is in Russia, it would be reasonable to choose the arbitration center included in the list of PAAIs in Russia and authorized to resolve international disputes in Russia.
      • If you agree in local contracts to resolve disputes by arbitration, it would be reasonable to choose the arbitration center included in the list of PAAIs in Russia and authorized to resolve local disputes in Russia.

      Javier Gaspar

      Áreas de práctica

      • Arbitraje
      • Contratos de distribución
      • Franquicia
      • Derecho Internacional Privado
      • Deporte
      Contáctanos Javier

      Contacta con Javier





        Lea la política de privacidad de Legalmondo.
        Este sitio está protegido por reCAPTCHA y se aplican la Política de privacidad de Google y los Términos de servicio.

        France | Arbitration clauses in international contracts with consumers are not enforceable

        16 de febrero de 2021

        • Francia
        • Arbitraje
        • Contratos
        • Litigios

        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.

        Summary: Companies with international projection and global presence can count on mediation and its benefits in the different contexts of their business, both in the compliance of the code of conduct and internal rules as well as in the compliance of contracts and projects with third parties or public authorities. In the same way, it facilitates access to a saturated justice system, while at the same time improving the relationship between the parties, as they do not have to face the wear and tear of the judicial phase, which leads to emotional wear and tear.

        I will focus on the intersection between compliance and mediation, as international corporations are increasingly interested in the potential of Mediation applied to compliance frameworks. Although there are a few important challenges that we need to mention, the benefits of international mediation are clear: costs savings, quick solutions and a good understanding between the parties. International mediation and compliance go hand in hand and, although they may not seem to have much in common, they complement each other. The purpose of this article is to illustrate with some practical examples the advantages of compliance mediation for small and medium-sized enterprises operating internationally, in order to demonstrate the potential that exists in this combination.

        Mediation is a form of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) that involves the intervention of a neutral third party, known as the mediator, to help disputing parties reach a mutually acceptable agreement. Unlike litigation, which involves a judge making a binding decision, mediation allows the parties to control the outcome, facilitating a more collaborative and flexible approach to resolving disputes.

        In the context of compliance issues and international contracts, mediation offers a unique advantage by addressing both legal and non-legal aspects of disputes, such as cultural differences, business practices, and organizational relationships. This flexibility is particularly important when dealing with international contracts, where cross-cultural understanding and respect for diverse legal systems are essential.

        The key is still the same recipe as the initial negotiation of a contract. The parties objectively and in a neutral atmosphere and collaborative approach, find ‘solutions’ to their disagreements where both parties win. The so-called win-win is still the best scenario in which the parties should meet again in dispute resolution. I always insist on the word ‘reconnect’ because of its positive connotation in any relationship. Mediation allows the parties to negotiate a mutually acceptable outcome, preserving the relationship between them, with the additional value of cost and time efficiencies and confidentiality guaranteed throughout the process.

        Mediation benefits compliance programmes in two keyways.

        Resolving internal compliance issues

        This is accomplished through facilitating communication and conflict resolution among employees, promoting a culture of dialogue, transparency and accountability. When a company uses mediation to resolve conflicts arising from internal compliance-related situations, it helps to prevent a conflict from escalating in proportions both in the form of legal action and disputes that may involve the public administration.

        A clear example is conflicts related to the code of conduct, where disputes often arise at the HR level. Another example is that arising from conflicts of interest. In both cases the connection lies in the common goal of promoting ethical behaviour, improving communication and resolving conflicts in a way that helps the employee and the company to follow its internal rules and achieve the required standards.

        Mediation opens a space for dialogue and amicable conflict resolution, facilitating employees’ professional and personal growth in a sustained way over time.

        Another example can be conflicts related to cross-border labour issues applicable to the same company, whether private, non-governmental organisation or conflicts between private and public companies. The reasons for the conflict may be related to harassment issues or pay inequality issues. For example, the internal pay system within an international organisation should consider the following elements:

        • Remuneration represents by far the most important and controversial element of the employment relationship and is of equal interest to the employer and the employee.
        • The remuneration system should be based on and consistent with the principles of the organisation.
        • The criteria for determining remuneration should be objective and measurable.
        • The system should be equitable.

        Conflicts often arise around these elements and companies should be transparent, through comprehensive policies, about their position on non-discrimination, harassment or inclusion of their employees within their organisation and the markets in which they operate.

        Mediation can be a channel to help find solutions to equality and non-discrimination issues between employees within the same organisation. It also obliges companies to consider the standards of international legislation (e.g. CSRD) when implementing their policies. We are seeing that it is not a ‘nice to have’ but a ‘must have’.

        Resolving disputes with external parties

        Mediation can be used to enforce commercial contracts or in projects. It helps prevent disputes between companies or between companies and regulators, foster better relations, and ensure compliance standards are met without resorting to litigation. Mediation promotes cooperation between the parties and helps reduce the risk of future contractual violations.

        A clear example of the benefits of the use of mediation in compliance arises in the international context where legal certainty is required for both parties, as well as fair and reasonable management of a long-term project. In some cases, there is a public-private element to the dispute as the public sector is involved (either in licensing issues or as a regulatory authority). This may create some confusion in the roles and rights of the parties, which makes perfect sense when the interests of the investor (private equity) and the community or private parties are very diverse.

        For context, we might think of environmental, social and governance issues that are receiving serious attention from governments and regulators, given the impact on the planet and the people within the communities where they live. Mediation offers a way to resolve these conflicts by facilitating open communication between the parties involved. For instance, if a company is accused of breaching a country’s environmental regulations, mediation can provide a platform for the company and regulatory authorities to discuss the issues, share concerns, and negotiate a solution that satisfies both parties. Instead of pursuing punitive measures or resorting to lengthy legal battles, mediation can help parties find common ground and craft a solution that supports compliance while preserving business relationships.

        A concrete example is mining activities, which contribute greatly to the involvement of foreign entities in resource-rich countries, involving, on a large scale, both foreign and domestic interests, and potentially resulting in pollution and damage to the environment. In addition, there are various problems, especially the use of land for mining activities, which causes friction between mining companies, communities and local governments where mining activities take place. Since these projects take place over a long period of time and involve various interests of both private and public actors as well as communities, mediation is undoubtedly a good way to prevent disputes during the whole process of project development and implementation, offering in conflict situations not only a quick solution for both parties but also a fair and reasonable management of a project in the long term.

        Another tool, with elements of mediation, which is recommended for the successful completion of large projects, as for instance construction projects, are Dispute Boards, a panel of one to three members with extensive experience in the field of the contract, who accompany the execution of the contract until the work is completed on time and on budget. This method is not a pure and simple mediation, although it resembles it, because the Dispute Boards, in particular the so-called DAAB (Dispute Avoidance and Adjudication Board), permanently seek to avoid conflict and, if it arises, to encourage the parties to find a solution or to make it binding. I will go into more detail on this subject in another article.

        Hereby, we can also mention internal control and auditability towards third parties, be they customers or suppliers. The EU directive (CSDDD) puts the emphasis on indirect suppliers in the supply chain. It is therefore important that when establishing a business or investment partnership, all parties involved have a similar level of compliance with standards. In this regard, framework compliance agreements, which are compliance agreements that regulate the compliance obligations of both parties’ subject to a service contract, are very common.

        Aspects of compliance in such contracts may include, among others, anti-corruption policy, fee evasion, international sanctions, trainings, reporting requirements and ways to audit the compliance clauses agreed in the service contract, as well as the escalation clause to resolve disputes amicably, using the various existing ADR modes.

        In the context of commercial contracts, mediation is used to resolve disputes related to non-performance, late deliveries, payment problems, interpretations of clauses or any other dispute arising from a commercial agreement, including any aspect of the compliance agreement as referred to above.

        For an internationally developing company it would be advisable to promote mediation as the type of dispute resolution in conflicts with third parties. One way to promote mediation as an effective means of dispute resolution could be through a clause of voluntary submission to mediation in all transactions with third parties, followed by arbitration or submission to the courts of a certain jurisdiction, known as a tiered dispute resolution clause. These clauses provide for a gradual system of dispute resolution following various alternative methods of resolving disputes, usually culminating in arbitration if the outcome of the first alternative methods is unsuccessful.

        The choice of conflict resolution through mediation is a ‘win-win solution’, whose confidentiality is guaranteed in the face of public attention. Based on these advantages, mediation is considered more suitable to be implemented (agreed, including with the escalation clause) in a contract.

        Challenges of Mediation in International Contract Disputes

        Despite its many advantages, mediation is not without its challenges. Some of the key obstacles include:

        Lack of Enforcement Mechanisms: Mediation agreements are typically non-binding, meaning that parties are not legally required to adhere to the terms of the settlement. While mediation can result in a mutually agreed-upon solution, enforcing the agreement may require the parties to enter into further negotiations or even resort to litigation if one side fails to honour the agreement.

        Cultural and Language Barriers: In international contract disputes, cultural differences and language barriers can complicate the mediation process. It is important to select mediators who have experience with cross-cultural communication and who understand the legal systems involved. Without such expertise, the mediation process may be ineffective.

        Reluctance to Mediate: Some parties may be reluctant to mediate, especially if they perceive it as a sign of weakness or if they are unfamiliar with the process. This reluctance can be overcome with proper education and a clear understanding of the benefits of mediation.

        Although we can say that there is a growth of mediation around the world and the level of satisfaction of the use of mediation is based on its core values, which are impartiality, confidentiality and self-determination, the promotion of the mediation is still an important challenge.

        Conclusion

        In the case of internal compliance, mediation usually takes a more reactive role, i.e. when the conflict has already surfaced within the company or organisation; whereas, in the case of third party compliance, mediation takes a preventive role, such as in the case of Dispute Boards, although it also helps to resolve a commercial conflict between parties who wish to continue to maintain a business relationship. In both cases the objective is the same, to try to find common ground between the interests of the parties in order to resolve or avoid a conflict that could lead the parties to a legal dispute.

        As international trade continues to grow and the complexity of global regulations increases, businesses and organizations can benefit from adopting mediation as a strategic method for resolving conflicts. By fostering cooperation and understanding, mediation can help build stronger, more resilient business relationships and ensure long-term success in a global marketplace.

        Companies need to adhere to their own compliance programmes, but also to the programme of their customers, suppliers or banks with whom they collaborate. Not only is there a need for expertise to know the legal framework applicable to the industry, but there is also a need for conflict resolution when conflicts arise or even to act pre-emptively. Legal battles are expensive, time-consuming and damaging to business relationships. Many jurisdictions and industries are already demanding an obligation for parties to exhaust alternative dispute resolution methods before moving to the litigation phase.

        El arbitraje es un procedimiento para resolver los conflictos entre las partes que tiene gran éxito en el sistema legal anglosajón. Y bastante menos en nuestro país.

        Tiene ventajas e inconvenientes; es más caro que los Tribunales, pero es mucho más rápido; y la velocidad es esencial para que la justicia sea tal.

        Típicamente un arbitraje dura seis meses más un par de ellos para el nombramiento del árbitro; en total, en 8 meses puede estar definitivamente resuelto un conflicto, por importante y difícil que pueda ser.

        Por comparar con los Tribunales, en España hoy debemos contar con unos 18 meses de media para tener sentencia en primera instancia y otro tanto para el recurso de apelación; sin contar con posible recurso ante el Tribunal Supremo.

        La piedra angular sobre la que descansa el arbitraje es que el laudo del árbitro es final y definitivo y no admite revisión ni recurso; esta afirmación tiene determinadas excepciones fundamentalmente de carácter formal o procedimental: básicamente, la legalidad del convenio arbitral, la arbitrabilidad de la materia y la regularidad procedimental en el desarrollo del procedimiento arbitral. Estos vicios o defectos pueden ser atacados a través de un recurso de anulación del que si entiende la jurisdicción ordinaria.

        Pero además de los posibles defectos “formales”, la acción de anulación del laudo puede apoyarse en la denuncia de una infracción del “orden público” que el Tribunal Constitucional ha definido y perfilado como “aquellos principios jurídicos públicos y privados, políticos, morales y económicos que son absolutamente obligatorios para la conservación de la sociedad en un pueblo y en una época determinada”.

        Como esta definición de “orden público” es, indudablemente, amplia e inconcreta, el recurso a la vulneración del orden público como herramienta para declarar la nulidad de los laudos por la jurisdicción ordinaria, ha producido un efecto de “desbordamiento” que ha exigido, en palabras del Tribunal Constitucional “llevar a cabo una interpretación restrictiva del misma so pena de vulnerar la autonomía de la voluntad de las partes y su renuncia a la tutela jurisdiccional”.

        Así lo ha proclamado dicho Tribunal en la muy importante sentencia de 15 de febrero pasado que motiva esta nota.

        En estos últimos años el Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Madrid ha recurrido al argumento del “orden público” de manera extensiva y “desbordada” para anular laudos y “suplir al tribunal arbitral en su función de aplicar el derecho”, convirtiéndose en “una segunda instancia revisora de los hechos y derechos aplicados en el laudo, un mecanismo de control de la correcta aplicación de la jurisprudencia”.

        Y esta interpretación del orden público expansiva y “desbordada” como herramienta para anular laudos por parte del TSJM se había convertido en un grave problema para la institución arbitral y para la confianza de los contratantes a la hora de incluir convenios arbitrales en sus contratos; el principio de que el laudo era la solución definitiva y final al conflicto que pretende resolver, salvo por infracciones procedimentales o infracción del orden publico limitado a aquellos casos en los que el laudo fuera arbitrario, ilógico, absurdo o irracional, quedaba en entredicho y suponía un elemento claramente disuasorio a la hora de que los contratantes decidieran resolver sus discrepancias por medio de arbitraje.

        Pues bien, el Tribunal Constitucional de manera rotunda y explicita, repitiendo lo que ya adelantó en su sentencia de junio del año pasado, confirma que la necesidad de que el laudo no contravenga el orden público, no puede traer como consecuencia que el órgano judicial supla al árbitro en su función de aplicación del derecho, ni puede convertirse en una segunda instancia revisora de los hechos y de los fundamentos de derecho aplicados en el laudo ni un mecanismo de control de la correcta aplicación de la jurisprudencia.

        Prima el principio de la autonomía de la voluntad de las partes; y ello significa que cuando existe sometimiento a arbitraje, las partes han convenido que debe ser a través de ese cauce como han de resolverse las controversias entre ellas, mediante la decisión del arbitro que solo  podrá ser anulada a través de los estrictos cauces que la propia Ley de Arbitraje regula; insistimos, por razones procedimentales o por vulnerar el orden público en la interpretación restringida que explica la sentencia que comentamos; pero en ningún caso, a modo de una segunda instancia donde se re -evalúen de nuevo los hechos y los fundamentos de derecho aplicados.

        En suma, el arbitraje español está de enhorabuena, y podrá recuperar el impulso que le hizo perder, en parte, la interpretación extensiva del orden público que defendían algunos Tribunales Superiores de Justicia. A partir de ahora los Tribunales no podrán soslayar la interpretación del Tribunal Constitucional que supone un soplo de aire fresco para el arbitraje español.

        In an important and very reasoned judgment delivered by the Court of Cassation of France on September 30, 2020, relating to the enforceability of arbitration clauses in international consumer contracts, the Supreme Court judged that these clauses must be considered unfair and cannot be opposed to consumers.  

        The Supreme Court traditionally insisted on the priority given to the arbitrator to decide on his own jurisdiction, laid down in Article 1448 of the Code of Civil Procedure (principle known as «competence-competence», Jaguar, Civ. 1re, May 21, 1997, nos. 95-11.429 and 95-11.427). 

        The ECJ expressed its hostility towards such clauses when they are opposed to consumers. In Mostaza Claro (C-168/05), it referred to the internal laws of member states, while considering that the procedural modalities offered by states should not “make it impossible in practice or excessively difficult to exercise the rights conferred by public order to consumers (“Directive 93/13, concerning unfair terms in consumer contracts, must be interpreted as meaning that a national court seized of an action for annulment of an arbitration award must determine whether the arbitration agreement is void and annul that award where that agreement contains an unfair term, even though the consumer has not pleaded that invalidity in the course of the arbitration proceedings, but only in that of the action for annulment”).  

        It therefore referred to the national judge the right to implement its legislation on unfair terms, and therefore to decide, on a case-by-case basis, whether the arbitration clause should be considered unfair. This is what the Court of Cassation decided, ruling out the case-by-case method, and considering that in any event such a clause must be excluded in relations with consumers.  

        The Court of Cassation adopted the same solution in international employment contracts, where it traditionally considers that arbitration clauses contained in international employment contracts are enforceable against employee (Soc. 16 Feb. 1999, n ° 96-40.643). 

        The Supreme Court, although traditionally very favourable to arbitration, gradually builds up a set of specific exceptions to ensure the protection of the «weak» party.

        Unfair commercial behaviours between professionals are sanctioned in Sections L442-1 and seq. of the French Commercial Code. French Courts tend to consider that those dispositions of the Commercial Code are mandatory, in particular Section L442-1, II of the Code on abrupt termination of commercial relationships. Based on this section, an operator can be held liable if he terminates a commercial relationship without respecting a prior notice which duration depends on the duration of the relationship.

        Although this is considered to be a mandatory law, the French Supreme Court considers that it does not preclude to bring a dispute before foreign Courts in compliance with a jurisdiction clause (Civ.1, 8 July 2010, Doga, n°09-67013). Moreover, Courts have ruled for a long time now that arbitrators are entitled to apply national mandatory laws (Court of Appeal of Paris, 19 March 1993, Labinal, n°9221091). In the case Doga above quoted, the Court concluded that arbitrators are also entitled to apply Sections 442-1, II of the Commercial Code related to the conditions of termination of commercial relationship. Therefore, if a contract contains an arbitration clause, the judge is obliged to give priority to the arbitrators to decide on their own jurisdiction to decide on the case (principle « compétence-compétence ») in conformity with Section 1465 of the French Procedural Code. This solution was confirmed in a recent decision rendered on 5 September 2019 by the Court of Appeal of Paris in  Charlivari v. Sté Equivalanza, n°17/03703.

        It is noteworthy to underline that two sets of sanctions are considered under Sections 442-1 and seq. of the Commercial Code: the first sanction allows the victim of unfair practice to seek damages (for instance for abrupt termination of commercial relationship) against the author of unfair practices;  the second sanction is decided by the public administration, under the authority of the Ministry of Economics : the Ministry is entitled to bring the case to Courts, which can then decide to fine the party who is liable of unfair practices (the fine can be up to 5% of the turnover made in France by the person liable or 5 Million EUR).

        Therefore, one single matter can give rise to two procedures at the same time, the first one initiated by the victim and the second one at the request of the Ministry of Economics (Section L442-4 of the Code). In a case Apple v. Ministre de l’Economie, the Supreme Court (Civ.1, 6 juillet 2016, n° 15-21811) considered that the action of the Ministry of Economics cannot be decided by arbitrators, even if the contract contains an arbitration clause, because of the specificity of this action, which is not based on the contract by itself but on powers that the Ministry draws from the law.

        Therefore, a clear distinction must be made between the two procedures: one is subject to the application of the dispute resolution clause (either national Courts, even foreign, or arbitration tribunals), when damages are sought from the author of unfair practices, including abrupt termination; the other one can be brought only before French national Courts, and the dispute resolution clause has no effect, in cases which are brought by the Ministry of Economics for administrative sanctions against the same author.

        El procedimiento arbitral en España se caracteriza, y constituye una de sus grandes ventajas, por la dificultad de anular o revocar judicialmente el laudo; las partes saben que el laudo que se dicte es en la mayoría de los casos firme y definitivo y pone punto final al conflicto.

        El art. 41 de la Ley de Arbitraje únicamente permite la anulación del laudo por razones de forma (inexistencia o invalidez del convenio arbitral, falta de notificación a alguna de las partes sobre la designación del árbitro o de las actuaciones arbitrales, indebida designación de los árbitros o que los árbitros hayan resuelto sobre materias que no eran o no podían ser objeto de arbitraje por imperio de la ley). Y adicionalmente el laudo también es anulable cuando es contrario al “orden público”.

        Que cosa sea el “orden público” como para dar lugar, en caso de vulneración, a la anulación del laudo, es cuestión que de siempre ha sido controvertida y debatida; ya en la Convención de Nueva York de 1958 se alude el “orden público” como causa de denegación del reconocimiento de laudos extranjeros. Como recuerda el Tribunal Constitucional (“TC”) en la sentencia que comentamos, citando su propia jurisprudencia, “el orden público material es el conjunto de principios jurídicos públicos y privados, políticos, morales y económicos que son absolutamente obligatorios para la conservación de la sociedad en un pueblo y en una época determinada y el orden público procesal se configura como el conjunto de formalidades y principios necesarios de nuestro ordenamiento jurídico procesal y solo el arbitraje que contradiga alguno o algunos de tales principios podrá ser tachado de nulo por vulneración del orden público”.

        A título de ejemplo, durante 2018 se presentaron 38 demandas de anulación de laudos ante los Tribunales Superiores de Justicia (“TSJ”) de los que 31 se fundamentaban en vulneración del orden público; resultaron estimadas 8 de las demandas (21%), 5 por vulneración del orden público y 3 por invalidez del convenio arbitral.

        El TSJ de Madrid ha venido manteniendo en los últimos tiempos una interpretación muy “expansiva” del orden público, lo que ha generado dudas y temores en las instituciones y Cortes Arbitrales, por el efecto disuasorio que dicha posición podría tener a la hora de elegir Madrid como sede de arbitrajes, nacionales o internacionales.

        Y en la línea interpretativa a la que nos referimos, el TSJ de Madrid ha mantenido el siguiente y sorprendente criterio: dictado un laudo e interpuesta demanda de anulación por una de las partes, los litigantes alcanzaron un acuerdo extrajudicial y solicitaron conjuntamente  el archivo de la demanda de anulación; es decir, ambos daban el laudo por bueno y definitivo; el TSJ rechazó la petición y siguió adelante hasta dictar sentencia anulando el laudo, argumentando que como la demanda de anulación se basaba en la infracción del orden público, entonces ya la materia no era disponible por las partes y no era, en opinión del Tribunal, susceptible de transacción o renuncia.

        No era esta la primera vez que el TSJ adoptaba esta postura: impetrada la anulación de un laudo por ser contrario al “orden público”, las partes ya no tenían la posibilidad de transar y renunciar a la demanda de anulación.

        Por primera vez el asunto ha llegado al Tribunal Constitucional (TC): en un reciente fallo del 15 de junio de 2020, el TC ha sido claro y rotundo; recuerda en su sentencia que el proceso civil se fundamenta en el principio de “disposición de las partes para regular sus intereses privados, es decir, para iniciar la actividad jurisdiccional, determinar el objeto del proceso y ponerle fin cuando estimen conveniente”. Es lo que llamamos “justicia rogada”; y este principio aplica no solo a los procedimientos civiles ante los tribunales ordinarios sino también a los procedimientos arbitrales; asimismo afirma la sentencia que el arbitraje está configurado por la Ley como un mecanismo heterónomo de resolución de conflictos al que es consustancial la mínima intervención de los órganos judiciales a favor de la autonomía de la voluntad.

        Y concluye sentando que la acción de anulación debe ser entendida como un proceso de control externo sobre el laudo que no permite una decisión sobre el fondo de la decisión de los árbitros, al estar tasadas las causas, lo que justifica que “el control de los laudos tenga carácter limitado y solo pueda obtenerse la anulación del laudo en casos excepcionales”.

        En suma, entiende y proclama el TC que es contrario al derecho a la tutela judicial efectiva que protege el art. 24 de la Constitución la negativa del Tribunal a reconocer la virtualidad de un acuerdo alcanzado entre los litigantes con fundamento en el poder dispositivo de las partes sin que medie norma prohibitiva que así lo autorice e imponiendo una decisión que subvierte el principio dispositivo o de “justicia rogada” que inspira el proceso civil; por lo que concede el amparo solicitado y ordena retrotraer las actuaciones al momento anterior al auto que denegó virtualidad a la solicitud conjunta de archivo para que el TSJ dicte otra resolución acompasada al criterio del TC.

        En suma, no podrá ya nunca más el TSJM impedir a los litigantes transar y poner fin a una demanda de anulación de laudo (como ocurre pacífica y habitualmente con los recursos de apelación o de casación) y además deberá tomar en consideración en adelante la interpretación restrictiva del concepto de orden público que ha establecido el TC en esta importante sentencia. En efecto, el arbitraje español sale muy reforzado con esta sentencia del TC.

        Are arbitration and jurisdiction clauses contained in insurance contracts enforceable against a third party which is acting directly against the insurer in third party liability insurances?

        Such direct action is admitted by French law in liability insurances, as defined in article 124-3 of the Insurance Code.

        In just a few months two radically different approaches have been taken by the French Cour de cassation (Civ.1, 19 December 2018, n°17-28.951) and the ECJ in Assens Havn v. Navigator Management UK Ltd (13 July 2017, C-368/16) and KABEG v. MMA IARD (20 July 2017, C-340/16).

        The case submitted to the Cour de cassation represented a third party exercising a direct right of action before French Courts against the insurer of a floating barge which had caused him a damage. The Supreme Court accepted that the insurer could validly oppose the arbitration clause, which was in the policy against the third party, and therefore judged that French Court had no jurisdiction to decide on the case. The Supreme Court applied the well-established principle of Compétence-Compétence – materialized in article 1448 of the French Code de Procédure Civile – to stay the case, considering that the arbitration clause could not be set aside. The Court therefore judged that the applicability of the arbitration clause should be determined by the arbitrators by priority.

        A year before, the ECJ had ruled in the opposite direction in a case where a jurisdiction clause was applicable in the insurance policy. In Assens Havn v. Navigator Management UK Ltd, the ECJ stated that the clause could not be opposed to the third party acting directly against the insurer. According to the Court, the insurers’ liability towards the insured has a contractual nature when based on the policy, whereas it is extra-contractual when the liability is based on a direct action from a third party. In a previous ruling the Court had considered (Sté financière et industrielle du Peloux (12 May 2005, C-112/03) that the jurisdiction clause cannot be opposed to the beneficiary of an insurance policy if he is not the policyholder (for instance in a collective insurance).

        One sees a clear difference in treatment between arbitration clause and jurisdiction clause when it comes to deciding on their opposability to the victim exercising a direct action against the insurer.

        Article 2061 paragraph 2 of the Civil Code states that an arbitration cannot be opposed to a party which has not contracted for the purpose of its business activity. The French Cour de cassation grounded its decision on the fact that the clauses of the main contract could be opposed to the third party. If the latter was entitled to apply the insurance contract, it was therefore entitled to invoke article 2061 paragraph 2 of the Civil Code.

        On 29 March 2019 new amendments to the federal law “On arbitration in the Russian Federation” entered into force. This law regulates the order of establishment and activities of arbitration courts and permanently acting arbitration institutions (PAAI) in Russia and applies to resolution of both international and local disputes by arbitration in Russia.

        The key amendments relate to granting of rights to foreign arbitration centers to perform functions of PAAIs in Russia. Earlier such rights were granted by the government, but as from 29 March 2019 such functions were transferred to the Ministry of Justice. Ministry of Justice grants the rights to perform functions of PAAIs in Russia to foreign arbitration centers based on recommendations received from the Council on improvement of arbitrations.

        As of 31 March 2019, there are only 4 (four) PAAIs authorized to administer disputes by arbitration in Russia and all of them are Russian organizations. In accordance with the latest news the Hong Kong International Arbitration Center (HKIAC) is the first international arbitration center that has recently received a recommendation from the Council on improvement of arbitrations to establish PAAI in Russia and has been approved by the Ministry of Justice to establish PAAI in Russia. In accordance with the law an arbitration center is included in the list of PAAIs in Russia within 15 days from the date of approval by the Council, i.e. by the end of April 2019 HKIAC could become the first international arbitration center authorized to administer international disputes in Russia.

        Another issue that should be carefully considered by choosing an arbitration center relate to resolution of disputes between companies established in Russia (local disputes) by international arbitration centers not included in the list of PAAIs in Russia and not authorized to consider local disputes in Russia.

        Though there is no direct prohibition established by the Russian law to settle disputes between Russian companies by foreign arbitration centers with the seat of arbitration outside of Russia, the possibility of referral of local disputes to foreign arbitration centers is still questionable. In one of the court decisions that caused disputes in legal community (case# А40-219464/16-52-430) the Russian court of first instance ruled that resolution of local disputes by the foreign arbitration institutions violates public policy in Russia. Notwithstanding the fact that such ruling was dismissed by the higher court instance the risk that the Russian courts might deny recognition of awards of foreign arbitration institutions not included in the list of PAAIs in Russia and not authorized to consider local disputes in Russia cannot be excluded.

        Therefore, in situations when the disputes arise between companies established in Russia it would be reasonable to choose arbitration institution included in the list of PAAIs in Russia and authorized to administer local disputes in Russia or, alternatively, agree on resolution of disputes by the Russian commercial courts.

        Takeaways

        • if you agree in international contracts that the seat of arbitration is in Russia, it would be reasonable to choose the arbitration center included in the list of PAAIs in Russia and authorized to resolve international disputes in Russia.
        • If you agree in local contracts to resolve disputes by arbitration, it would be reasonable to choose the arbitration center included in the list of PAAIs in Russia and authorized to resolve local disputes in Russia.

        Alexandre Malan

        Áreas de práctica

        • Arbitraje
        • Contratos de distribución
        • Seguros
        • Comercio internacional
        • Derecho Internacional Privado
        Contáctanos Alexandre

        Contacta con Alexandre





          Lea la política de privacidad de Legalmondo.
          Este sitio está protegido por reCAPTCHA y se aplican la Política de privacidad de Google y los Términos de servicio.

          France – Abrupt termination of contractual relationships and arbitration

          8 de noviembre de 2020

          • Francia
          • Arbitraje
          • Litigios

          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.

          Summary: Companies with international projection and global presence can count on mediation and its benefits in the different contexts of their business, both in the compliance of the code of conduct and internal rules as well as in the compliance of contracts and projects with third parties or public authorities. In the same way, it facilitates access to a saturated justice system, while at the same time improving the relationship between the parties, as they do not have to face the wear and tear of the judicial phase, which leads to emotional wear and tear.

          I will focus on the intersection between compliance and mediation, as international corporations are increasingly interested in the potential of Mediation applied to compliance frameworks. Although there are a few important challenges that we need to mention, the benefits of international mediation are clear: costs savings, quick solutions and a good understanding between the parties. International mediation and compliance go hand in hand and, although they may not seem to have much in common, they complement each other. The purpose of this article is to illustrate with some practical examples the advantages of compliance mediation for small and medium-sized enterprises operating internationally, in order to demonstrate the potential that exists in this combination.

          Mediation is a form of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) that involves the intervention of a neutral third party, known as the mediator, to help disputing parties reach a mutually acceptable agreement. Unlike litigation, which involves a judge making a binding decision, mediation allows the parties to control the outcome, facilitating a more collaborative and flexible approach to resolving disputes.

          In the context of compliance issues and international contracts, mediation offers a unique advantage by addressing both legal and non-legal aspects of disputes, such as cultural differences, business practices, and organizational relationships. This flexibility is particularly important when dealing with international contracts, where cross-cultural understanding and respect for diverse legal systems are essential.

          The key is still the same recipe as the initial negotiation of a contract. The parties objectively and in a neutral atmosphere and collaborative approach, find ‘solutions’ to their disagreements where both parties win. The so-called win-win is still the best scenario in which the parties should meet again in dispute resolution. I always insist on the word ‘reconnect’ because of its positive connotation in any relationship. Mediation allows the parties to negotiate a mutually acceptable outcome, preserving the relationship between them, with the additional value of cost and time efficiencies and confidentiality guaranteed throughout the process.

          Mediation benefits compliance programmes in two keyways.

          Resolving internal compliance issues

          This is accomplished through facilitating communication and conflict resolution among employees, promoting a culture of dialogue, transparency and accountability. When a company uses mediation to resolve conflicts arising from internal compliance-related situations, it helps to prevent a conflict from escalating in proportions both in the form of legal action and disputes that may involve the public administration.

          A clear example is conflicts related to the code of conduct, where disputes often arise at the HR level. Another example is that arising from conflicts of interest. In both cases the connection lies in the common goal of promoting ethical behaviour, improving communication and resolving conflicts in a way that helps the employee and the company to follow its internal rules and achieve the required standards.

          Mediation opens a space for dialogue and amicable conflict resolution, facilitating employees’ professional and personal growth in a sustained way over time.

          Another example can be conflicts related to cross-border labour issues applicable to the same company, whether private, non-governmental organisation or conflicts between private and public companies. The reasons for the conflict may be related to harassment issues or pay inequality issues. For example, the internal pay system within an international organisation should consider the following elements:

          • Remuneration represents by far the most important and controversial element of the employment relationship and is of equal interest to the employer and the employee.
          • The remuneration system should be based on and consistent with the principles of the organisation.
          • The criteria for determining remuneration should be objective and measurable.
          • The system should be equitable.

          Conflicts often arise around these elements and companies should be transparent, through comprehensive policies, about their position on non-discrimination, harassment or inclusion of their employees within their organisation and the markets in which they operate.

          Mediation can be a channel to help find solutions to equality and non-discrimination issues between employees within the same organisation. It also obliges companies to consider the standards of international legislation (e.g. CSRD) when implementing their policies. We are seeing that it is not a ‘nice to have’ but a ‘must have’.

          Resolving disputes with external parties

          Mediation can be used to enforce commercial contracts or in projects. It helps prevent disputes between companies or between companies and regulators, foster better relations, and ensure compliance standards are met without resorting to litigation. Mediation promotes cooperation between the parties and helps reduce the risk of future contractual violations.

          A clear example of the benefits of the use of mediation in compliance arises in the international context where legal certainty is required for both parties, as well as fair and reasonable management of a long-term project. In some cases, there is a public-private element to the dispute as the public sector is involved (either in licensing issues or as a regulatory authority). This may create some confusion in the roles and rights of the parties, which makes perfect sense when the interests of the investor (private equity) and the community or private parties are very diverse.

          For context, we might think of environmental, social and governance issues that are receiving serious attention from governments and regulators, given the impact on the planet and the people within the communities where they live. Mediation offers a way to resolve these conflicts by facilitating open communication between the parties involved. For instance, if a company is accused of breaching a country’s environmental regulations, mediation can provide a platform for the company and regulatory authorities to discuss the issues, share concerns, and negotiate a solution that satisfies both parties. Instead of pursuing punitive measures or resorting to lengthy legal battles, mediation can help parties find common ground and craft a solution that supports compliance while preserving business relationships.

          A concrete example is mining activities, which contribute greatly to the involvement of foreign entities in resource-rich countries, involving, on a large scale, both foreign and domestic interests, and potentially resulting in pollution and damage to the environment. In addition, there are various problems, especially the use of land for mining activities, which causes friction between mining companies, communities and local governments where mining activities take place. Since these projects take place over a long period of time and involve various interests of both private and public actors as well as communities, mediation is undoubtedly a good way to prevent disputes during the whole process of project development and implementation, offering in conflict situations not only a quick solution for both parties but also a fair and reasonable management of a project in the long term.

          Another tool, with elements of mediation, which is recommended for the successful completion of large projects, as for instance construction projects, are Dispute Boards, a panel of one to three members with extensive experience in the field of the contract, who accompany the execution of the contract until the work is completed on time and on budget. This method is not a pure and simple mediation, although it resembles it, because the Dispute Boards, in particular the so-called DAAB (Dispute Avoidance and Adjudication Board), permanently seek to avoid conflict and, if it arises, to encourage the parties to find a solution or to make it binding. I will go into more detail on this subject in another article.

          Hereby, we can also mention internal control and auditability towards third parties, be they customers or suppliers. The EU directive (CSDDD) puts the emphasis on indirect suppliers in the supply chain. It is therefore important that when establishing a business or investment partnership, all parties involved have a similar level of compliance with standards. In this regard, framework compliance agreements, which are compliance agreements that regulate the compliance obligations of both parties’ subject to a service contract, are very common.

          Aspects of compliance in such contracts may include, among others, anti-corruption policy, fee evasion, international sanctions, trainings, reporting requirements and ways to audit the compliance clauses agreed in the service contract, as well as the escalation clause to resolve disputes amicably, using the various existing ADR modes.

          In the context of commercial contracts, mediation is used to resolve disputes related to non-performance, late deliveries, payment problems, interpretations of clauses or any other dispute arising from a commercial agreement, including any aspect of the compliance agreement as referred to above.

          For an internationally developing company it would be advisable to promote mediation as the type of dispute resolution in conflicts with third parties. One way to promote mediation as an effective means of dispute resolution could be through a clause of voluntary submission to mediation in all transactions with third parties, followed by arbitration or submission to the courts of a certain jurisdiction, known as a tiered dispute resolution clause. These clauses provide for a gradual system of dispute resolution following various alternative methods of resolving disputes, usually culminating in arbitration if the outcome of the first alternative methods is unsuccessful.

          The choice of conflict resolution through mediation is a ‘win-win solution’, whose confidentiality is guaranteed in the face of public attention. Based on these advantages, mediation is considered more suitable to be implemented (agreed, including with the escalation clause) in a contract.

          Challenges of Mediation in International Contract Disputes

          Despite its many advantages, mediation is not without its challenges. Some of the key obstacles include:

          Lack of Enforcement Mechanisms: Mediation agreements are typically non-binding, meaning that parties are not legally required to adhere to the terms of the settlement. While mediation can result in a mutually agreed-upon solution, enforcing the agreement may require the parties to enter into further negotiations or even resort to litigation if one side fails to honour the agreement.

          Cultural and Language Barriers: In international contract disputes, cultural differences and language barriers can complicate the mediation process. It is important to select mediators who have experience with cross-cultural communication and who understand the legal systems involved. Without such expertise, the mediation process may be ineffective.

          Reluctance to Mediate: Some parties may be reluctant to mediate, especially if they perceive it as a sign of weakness or if they are unfamiliar with the process. This reluctance can be overcome with proper education and a clear understanding of the benefits of mediation.

          Although we can say that there is a growth of mediation around the world and the level of satisfaction of the use of mediation is based on its core values, which are impartiality, confidentiality and self-determination, the promotion of the mediation is still an important challenge.

          Conclusion

          In the case of internal compliance, mediation usually takes a more reactive role, i.e. when the conflict has already surfaced within the company or organisation; whereas, in the case of third party compliance, mediation takes a preventive role, such as in the case of Dispute Boards, although it also helps to resolve a commercial conflict between parties who wish to continue to maintain a business relationship. In both cases the objective is the same, to try to find common ground between the interests of the parties in order to resolve or avoid a conflict that could lead the parties to a legal dispute.

          As international trade continues to grow and the complexity of global regulations increases, businesses and organizations can benefit from adopting mediation as a strategic method for resolving conflicts. By fostering cooperation and understanding, mediation can help build stronger, more resilient business relationships and ensure long-term success in a global marketplace.

          Companies need to adhere to their own compliance programmes, but also to the programme of their customers, suppliers or banks with whom they collaborate. Not only is there a need for expertise to know the legal framework applicable to the industry, but there is also a need for conflict resolution when conflicts arise or even to act pre-emptively. Legal battles are expensive, time-consuming and damaging to business relationships. Many jurisdictions and industries are already demanding an obligation for parties to exhaust alternative dispute resolution methods before moving to the litigation phase.

          El arbitraje es un procedimiento para resolver los conflictos entre las partes que tiene gran éxito en el sistema legal anglosajón. Y bastante menos en nuestro país.

          Tiene ventajas e inconvenientes; es más caro que los Tribunales, pero es mucho más rápido; y la velocidad es esencial para que la justicia sea tal.

          Típicamente un arbitraje dura seis meses más un par de ellos para el nombramiento del árbitro; en total, en 8 meses puede estar definitivamente resuelto un conflicto, por importante y difícil que pueda ser.

          Por comparar con los Tribunales, en España hoy debemos contar con unos 18 meses de media para tener sentencia en primera instancia y otro tanto para el recurso de apelación; sin contar con posible recurso ante el Tribunal Supremo.

          La piedra angular sobre la que descansa el arbitraje es que el laudo del árbitro es final y definitivo y no admite revisión ni recurso; esta afirmación tiene determinadas excepciones fundamentalmente de carácter formal o procedimental: básicamente, la legalidad del convenio arbitral, la arbitrabilidad de la materia y la regularidad procedimental en el desarrollo del procedimiento arbitral. Estos vicios o defectos pueden ser atacados a través de un recurso de anulación del que si entiende la jurisdicción ordinaria.

          Pero además de los posibles defectos “formales”, la acción de anulación del laudo puede apoyarse en la denuncia de una infracción del “orden público” que el Tribunal Constitucional ha definido y perfilado como “aquellos principios jurídicos públicos y privados, políticos, morales y económicos que son absolutamente obligatorios para la conservación de la sociedad en un pueblo y en una época determinada”.

          Como esta definición de “orden público” es, indudablemente, amplia e inconcreta, el recurso a la vulneración del orden público como herramienta para declarar la nulidad de los laudos por la jurisdicción ordinaria, ha producido un efecto de “desbordamiento” que ha exigido, en palabras del Tribunal Constitucional “llevar a cabo una interpretación restrictiva del misma so pena de vulnerar la autonomía de la voluntad de las partes y su renuncia a la tutela jurisdiccional”.

          Así lo ha proclamado dicho Tribunal en la muy importante sentencia de 15 de febrero pasado que motiva esta nota.

          En estos últimos años el Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Madrid ha recurrido al argumento del “orden público” de manera extensiva y “desbordada” para anular laudos y “suplir al tribunal arbitral en su función de aplicar el derecho”, convirtiéndose en “una segunda instancia revisora de los hechos y derechos aplicados en el laudo, un mecanismo de control de la correcta aplicación de la jurisprudencia”.

          Y esta interpretación del orden público expansiva y “desbordada” como herramienta para anular laudos por parte del TSJM se había convertido en un grave problema para la institución arbitral y para la confianza de los contratantes a la hora de incluir convenios arbitrales en sus contratos; el principio de que el laudo era la solución definitiva y final al conflicto que pretende resolver, salvo por infracciones procedimentales o infracción del orden publico limitado a aquellos casos en los que el laudo fuera arbitrario, ilógico, absurdo o irracional, quedaba en entredicho y suponía un elemento claramente disuasorio a la hora de que los contratantes decidieran resolver sus discrepancias por medio de arbitraje.

          Pues bien, el Tribunal Constitucional de manera rotunda y explicita, repitiendo lo que ya adelantó en su sentencia de junio del año pasado, confirma que la necesidad de que el laudo no contravenga el orden público, no puede traer como consecuencia que el órgano judicial supla al árbitro en su función de aplicación del derecho, ni puede convertirse en una segunda instancia revisora de los hechos y de los fundamentos de derecho aplicados en el laudo ni un mecanismo de control de la correcta aplicación de la jurisprudencia.

          Prima el principio de la autonomía de la voluntad de las partes; y ello significa que cuando existe sometimiento a arbitraje, las partes han convenido que debe ser a través de ese cauce como han de resolverse las controversias entre ellas, mediante la decisión del arbitro que solo  podrá ser anulada a través de los estrictos cauces que la propia Ley de Arbitraje regula; insistimos, por razones procedimentales o por vulnerar el orden público en la interpretación restringida que explica la sentencia que comentamos; pero en ningún caso, a modo de una segunda instancia donde se re -evalúen de nuevo los hechos y los fundamentos de derecho aplicados.

          En suma, el arbitraje español está de enhorabuena, y podrá recuperar el impulso que le hizo perder, en parte, la interpretación extensiva del orden público que defendían algunos Tribunales Superiores de Justicia. A partir de ahora los Tribunales no podrán soslayar la interpretación del Tribunal Constitucional que supone un soplo de aire fresco para el arbitraje español.

          In an important and very reasoned judgment delivered by the Court of Cassation of France on September 30, 2020, relating to the enforceability of arbitration clauses in international consumer contracts, the Supreme Court judged that these clauses must be considered unfair and cannot be opposed to consumers.  

          The Supreme Court traditionally insisted on the priority given to the arbitrator to decide on his own jurisdiction, laid down in Article 1448 of the Code of Civil Procedure (principle known as «competence-competence», Jaguar, Civ. 1re, May 21, 1997, nos. 95-11.429 and 95-11.427). 

          The ECJ expressed its hostility towards such clauses when they are opposed to consumers. In Mostaza Claro (C-168/05), it referred to the internal laws of member states, while considering that the procedural modalities offered by states should not “make it impossible in practice or excessively difficult to exercise the rights conferred by public order to consumers (“Directive 93/13, concerning unfair terms in consumer contracts, must be interpreted as meaning that a national court seized of an action for annulment of an arbitration award must determine whether the arbitration agreement is void and annul that award where that agreement contains an unfair term, even though the consumer has not pleaded that invalidity in the course of the arbitration proceedings, but only in that of the action for annulment”).  

          It therefore referred to the national judge the right to implement its legislation on unfair terms, and therefore to decide, on a case-by-case basis, whether the arbitration clause should be considered unfair. This is what the Court of Cassation decided, ruling out the case-by-case method, and considering that in any event such a clause must be excluded in relations with consumers.  

          The Court of Cassation adopted the same solution in international employment contracts, where it traditionally considers that arbitration clauses contained in international employment contracts are enforceable against employee (Soc. 16 Feb. 1999, n ° 96-40.643). 

          The Supreme Court, although traditionally very favourable to arbitration, gradually builds up a set of specific exceptions to ensure the protection of the «weak» party.

          Unfair commercial behaviours between professionals are sanctioned in Sections L442-1 and seq. of the French Commercial Code. French Courts tend to consider that those dispositions of the Commercial Code are mandatory, in particular Section L442-1, II of the Code on abrupt termination of commercial relationships. Based on this section, an operator can be held liable if he terminates a commercial relationship without respecting a prior notice which duration depends on the duration of the relationship.

          Although this is considered to be a mandatory law, the French Supreme Court considers that it does not preclude to bring a dispute before foreign Courts in compliance with a jurisdiction clause (Civ.1, 8 July 2010, Doga, n°09-67013). Moreover, Courts have ruled for a long time now that arbitrators are entitled to apply national mandatory laws (Court of Appeal of Paris, 19 March 1993, Labinal, n°9221091). In the case Doga above quoted, the Court concluded that arbitrators are also entitled to apply Sections 442-1, II of the Commercial Code related to the conditions of termination of commercial relationship. Therefore, if a contract contains an arbitration clause, the judge is obliged to give priority to the arbitrators to decide on their own jurisdiction to decide on the case (principle « compétence-compétence ») in conformity with Section 1465 of the French Procedural Code. This solution was confirmed in a recent decision rendered on 5 September 2019 by the Court of Appeal of Paris in  Charlivari v. Sté Equivalanza, n°17/03703.

          It is noteworthy to underline that two sets of sanctions are considered under Sections 442-1 and seq. of the Commercial Code: the first sanction allows the victim of unfair practice to seek damages (for instance for abrupt termination of commercial relationship) against the author of unfair practices;  the second sanction is decided by the public administration, under the authority of the Ministry of Economics : the Ministry is entitled to bring the case to Courts, which can then decide to fine the party who is liable of unfair practices (the fine can be up to 5% of the turnover made in France by the person liable or 5 Million EUR).

          Therefore, one single matter can give rise to two procedures at the same time, the first one initiated by the victim and the second one at the request of the Ministry of Economics (Section L442-4 of the Code). In a case Apple v. Ministre de l’Economie, the Supreme Court (Civ.1, 6 juillet 2016, n° 15-21811) considered that the action of the Ministry of Economics cannot be decided by arbitrators, even if the contract contains an arbitration clause, because of the specificity of this action, which is not based on the contract by itself but on powers that the Ministry draws from the law.

          Therefore, a clear distinction must be made between the two procedures: one is subject to the application of the dispute resolution clause (either national Courts, even foreign, or arbitration tribunals), when damages are sought from the author of unfair practices, including abrupt termination; the other one can be brought only before French national Courts, and the dispute resolution clause has no effect, in cases which are brought by the Ministry of Economics for administrative sanctions against the same author.

          El procedimiento arbitral en España se caracteriza, y constituye una de sus grandes ventajas, por la dificultad de anular o revocar judicialmente el laudo; las partes saben que el laudo que se dicte es en la mayoría de los casos firme y definitivo y pone punto final al conflicto.

          El art. 41 de la Ley de Arbitraje únicamente permite la anulación del laudo por razones de forma (inexistencia o invalidez del convenio arbitral, falta de notificación a alguna de las partes sobre la designación del árbitro o de las actuaciones arbitrales, indebida designación de los árbitros o que los árbitros hayan resuelto sobre materias que no eran o no podían ser objeto de arbitraje por imperio de la ley). Y adicionalmente el laudo también es anulable cuando es contrario al “orden público”.

          Que cosa sea el “orden público” como para dar lugar, en caso de vulneración, a la anulación del laudo, es cuestión que de siempre ha sido controvertida y debatida; ya en la Convención de Nueva York de 1958 se alude el “orden público” como causa de denegación del reconocimiento de laudos extranjeros. Como recuerda el Tribunal Constitucional (“TC”) en la sentencia que comentamos, citando su propia jurisprudencia, “el orden público material es el conjunto de principios jurídicos públicos y privados, políticos, morales y económicos que son absolutamente obligatorios para la conservación de la sociedad en un pueblo y en una época determinada y el orden público procesal se configura como el conjunto de formalidades y principios necesarios de nuestro ordenamiento jurídico procesal y solo el arbitraje que contradiga alguno o algunos de tales principios podrá ser tachado de nulo por vulneración del orden público”.

          A título de ejemplo, durante 2018 se presentaron 38 demandas de anulación de laudos ante los Tribunales Superiores de Justicia (“TSJ”) de los que 31 se fundamentaban en vulneración del orden público; resultaron estimadas 8 de las demandas (21%), 5 por vulneración del orden público y 3 por invalidez del convenio arbitral.

          El TSJ de Madrid ha venido manteniendo en los últimos tiempos una interpretación muy “expansiva” del orden público, lo que ha generado dudas y temores en las instituciones y Cortes Arbitrales, por el efecto disuasorio que dicha posición podría tener a la hora de elegir Madrid como sede de arbitrajes, nacionales o internacionales.

          Y en la línea interpretativa a la que nos referimos, el TSJ de Madrid ha mantenido el siguiente y sorprendente criterio: dictado un laudo e interpuesta demanda de anulación por una de las partes, los litigantes alcanzaron un acuerdo extrajudicial y solicitaron conjuntamente  el archivo de la demanda de anulación; es decir, ambos daban el laudo por bueno y definitivo; el TSJ rechazó la petición y siguió adelante hasta dictar sentencia anulando el laudo, argumentando que como la demanda de anulación se basaba en la infracción del orden público, entonces ya la materia no era disponible por las partes y no era, en opinión del Tribunal, susceptible de transacción o renuncia.

          No era esta la primera vez que el TSJ adoptaba esta postura: impetrada la anulación de un laudo por ser contrario al “orden público”, las partes ya no tenían la posibilidad de transar y renunciar a la demanda de anulación.

          Por primera vez el asunto ha llegado al Tribunal Constitucional (TC): en un reciente fallo del 15 de junio de 2020, el TC ha sido claro y rotundo; recuerda en su sentencia que el proceso civil se fundamenta en el principio de “disposición de las partes para regular sus intereses privados, es decir, para iniciar la actividad jurisdiccional, determinar el objeto del proceso y ponerle fin cuando estimen conveniente”. Es lo que llamamos “justicia rogada”; y este principio aplica no solo a los procedimientos civiles ante los tribunales ordinarios sino también a los procedimientos arbitrales; asimismo afirma la sentencia que el arbitraje está configurado por la Ley como un mecanismo heterónomo de resolución de conflictos al que es consustancial la mínima intervención de los órganos judiciales a favor de la autonomía de la voluntad.

          Y concluye sentando que la acción de anulación debe ser entendida como un proceso de control externo sobre el laudo que no permite una decisión sobre el fondo de la decisión de los árbitros, al estar tasadas las causas, lo que justifica que “el control de los laudos tenga carácter limitado y solo pueda obtenerse la anulación del laudo en casos excepcionales”.

          En suma, entiende y proclama el TC que es contrario al derecho a la tutela judicial efectiva que protege el art. 24 de la Constitución la negativa del Tribunal a reconocer la virtualidad de un acuerdo alcanzado entre los litigantes con fundamento en el poder dispositivo de las partes sin que medie norma prohibitiva que así lo autorice e imponiendo una decisión que subvierte el principio dispositivo o de “justicia rogada” que inspira el proceso civil; por lo que concede el amparo solicitado y ordena retrotraer las actuaciones al momento anterior al auto que denegó virtualidad a la solicitud conjunta de archivo para que el TSJ dicte otra resolución acompasada al criterio del TC.

          En suma, no podrá ya nunca más el TSJM impedir a los litigantes transar y poner fin a una demanda de anulación de laudo (como ocurre pacífica y habitualmente con los recursos de apelación o de casación) y además deberá tomar en consideración en adelante la interpretación restrictiva del concepto de orden público que ha establecido el TC en esta importante sentencia. En efecto, el arbitraje español sale muy reforzado con esta sentencia del TC.

          Are arbitration and jurisdiction clauses contained in insurance contracts enforceable against a third party which is acting directly against the insurer in third party liability insurances?

          Such direct action is admitted by French law in liability insurances, as defined in article 124-3 of the Insurance Code.

          In just a few months two radically different approaches have been taken by the French Cour de cassation (Civ.1, 19 December 2018, n°17-28.951) and the ECJ in Assens Havn v. Navigator Management UK Ltd (13 July 2017, C-368/16) and KABEG v. MMA IARD (20 July 2017, C-340/16).

          The case submitted to the Cour de cassation represented a third party exercising a direct right of action before French Courts against the insurer of a floating barge which had caused him a damage. The Supreme Court accepted that the insurer could validly oppose the arbitration clause, which was in the policy against the third party, and therefore judged that French Court had no jurisdiction to decide on the case. The Supreme Court applied the well-established principle of Compétence-Compétence – materialized in article 1448 of the French Code de Procédure Civile – to stay the case, considering that the arbitration clause could not be set aside. The Court therefore judged that the applicability of the arbitration clause should be determined by the arbitrators by priority.

          A year before, the ECJ had ruled in the opposite direction in a case where a jurisdiction clause was applicable in the insurance policy. In Assens Havn v. Navigator Management UK Ltd, the ECJ stated that the clause could not be opposed to the third party acting directly against the insurer. According to the Court, the insurers’ liability towards the insured has a contractual nature when based on the policy, whereas it is extra-contractual when the liability is based on a direct action from a third party. In a previous ruling the Court had considered (Sté financière et industrielle du Peloux (12 May 2005, C-112/03) that the jurisdiction clause cannot be opposed to the beneficiary of an insurance policy if he is not the policyholder (for instance in a collective insurance).

          One sees a clear difference in treatment between arbitration clause and jurisdiction clause when it comes to deciding on their opposability to the victim exercising a direct action against the insurer.

          Article 2061 paragraph 2 of the Civil Code states that an arbitration cannot be opposed to a party which has not contracted for the purpose of its business activity. The French Cour de cassation grounded its decision on the fact that the clauses of the main contract could be opposed to the third party. If the latter was entitled to apply the insurance contract, it was therefore entitled to invoke article 2061 paragraph 2 of the Civil Code.

          On 29 March 2019 new amendments to the federal law “On arbitration in the Russian Federation” entered into force. This law regulates the order of establishment and activities of arbitration courts and permanently acting arbitration institutions (PAAI) in Russia and applies to resolution of both international and local disputes by arbitration in Russia.

          The key amendments relate to granting of rights to foreign arbitration centers to perform functions of PAAIs in Russia. Earlier such rights were granted by the government, but as from 29 March 2019 such functions were transferred to the Ministry of Justice. Ministry of Justice grants the rights to perform functions of PAAIs in Russia to foreign arbitration centers based on recommendations received from the Council on improvement of arbitrations.

          As of 31 March 2019, there are only 4 (four) PAAIs authorized to administer disputes by arbitration in Russia and all of them are Russian organizations. In accordance with the latest news the Hong Kong International Arbitration Center (HKIAC) is the first international arbitration center that has recently received a recommendation from the Council on improvement of arbitrations to establish PAAI in Russia and has been approved by the Ministry of Justice to establish PAAI in Russia. In accordance with the law an arbitration center is included in the list of PAAIs in Russia within 15 days from the date of approval by the Council, i.e. by the end of April 2019 HKIAC could become the first international arbitration center authorized to administer international disputes in Russia.

          Another issue that should be carefully considered by choosing an arbitration center relate to resolution of disputes between companies established in Russia (local disputes) by international arbitration centers not included in the list of PAAIs in Russia and not authorized to consider local disputes in Russia.

          Though there is no direct prohibition established by the Russian law to settle disputes between Russian companies by foreign arbitration centers with the seat of arbitration outside of Russia, the possibility of referral of local disputes to foreign arbitration centers is still questionable. In one of the court decisions that caused disputes in legal community (case# А40-219464/16-52-430) the Russian court of first instance ruled that resolution of local disputes by the foreign arbitration institutions violates public policy in Russia. Notwithstanding the fact that such ruling was dismissed by the higher court instance the risk that the Russian courts might deny recognition of awards of foreign arbitration institutions not included in the list of PAAIs in Russia and not authorized to consider local disputes in Russia cannot be excluded.

          Therefore, in situations when the disputes arise between companies established in Russia it would be reasonable to choose arbitration institution included in the list of PAAIs in Russia and authorized to administer local disputes in Russia or, alternatively, agree on resolution of disputes by the Russian commercial courts.

          Takeaways

          • if you agree in international contracts that the seat of arbitration is in Russia, it would be reasonable to choose the arbitration center included in the list of PAAIs in Russia and authorized to resolve international disputes in Russia.
          • If you agree in local contracts to resolve disputes by arbitration, it would be reasonable to choose the arbitration center included in the list of PAAIs in Russia and authorized to resolve local disputes in Russia.

          Alexandre Malan

          Áreas de práctica

          • Arbitraje
          • Contratos de distribución
          • Seguros
          • Comercio internacional
          • Derecho Internacional Privado
          Contáctanos Alexandre

          Contacta con Alexandre





            Lea la política de privacidad de Legalmondo.
            Este sitio está protegido por reCAPTCHA y se aplican la Política de privacidad de Google y los Términos de servicio.

            España | Solicitud de anulación de laudos arbitrales y Orden Público

            30 de agosto de 2020

            • España
            • Arbitraje
            • Litigios

            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.

            Summary: Companies with international projection and global presence can count on mediation and its benefits in the different contexts of their business, both in the compliance of the code of conduct and internal rules as well as in the compliance of contracts and projects with third parties or public authorities. In the same way, it facilitates access to a saturated justice system, while at the same time improving the relationship between the parties, as they do not have to face the wear and tear of the judicial phase, which leads to emotional wear and tear.

            I will focus on the intersection between compliance and mediation, as international corporations are increasingly interested in the potential of Mediation applied to compliance frameworks. Although there are a few important challenges that we need to mention, the benefits of international mediation are clear: costs savings, quick solutions and a good understanding between the parties. International mediation and compliance go hand in hand and, although they may not seem to have much in common, they complement each other. The purpose of this article is to illustrate with some practical examples the advantages of compliance mediation for small and medium-sized enterprises operating internationally, in order to demonstrate the potential that exists in this combination.

            Mediation is a form of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) that involves the intervention of a neutral third party, known as the mediator, to help disputing parties reach a mutually acceptable agreement. Unlike litigation, which involves a judge making a binding decision, mediation allows the parties to control the outcome, facilitating a more collaborative and flexible approach to resolving disputes.

            In the context of compliance issues and international contracts, mediation offers a unique advantage by addressing both legal and non-legal aspects of disputes, such as cultural differences, business practices, and organizational relationships. This flexibility is particularly important when dealing with international contracts, where cross-cultural understanding and respect for diverse legal systems are essential.

            The key is still the same recipe as the initial negotiation of a contract. The parties objectively and in a neutral atmosphere and collaborative approach, find ‘solutions’ to their disagreements where both parties win. The so-called win-win is still the best scenario in which the parties should meet again in dispute resolution. I always insist on the word ‘reconnect’ because of its positive connotation in any relationship. Mediation allows the parties to negotiate a mutually acceptable outcome, preserving the relationship between them, with the additional value of cost and time efficiencies and confidentiality guaranteed throughout the process.

            Mediation benefits compliance programmes in two keyways.

            Resolving internal compliance issues

            This is accomplished through facilitating communication and conflict resolution among employees, promoting a culture of dialogue, transparency and accountability. When a company uses mediation to resolve conflicts arising from internal compliance-related situations, it helps to prevent a conflict from escalating in proportions both in the form of legal action and disputes that may involve the public administration.

            A clear example is conflicts related to the code of conduct, where disputes often arise at the HR level. Another example is that arising from conflicts of interest. In both cases the connection lies in the common goal of promoting ethical behaviour, improving communication and resolving conflicts in a way that helps the employee and the company to follow its internal rules and achieve the required standards.

            Mediation opens a space for dialogue and amicable conflict resolution, facilitating employees’ professional and personal growth in a sustained way over time.

            Another example can be conflicts related to cross-border labour issues applicable to the same company, whether private, non-governmental organisation or conflicts between private and public companies. The reasons for the conflict may be related to harassment issues or pay inequality issues. For example, the internal pay system within an international organisation should consider the following elements:

            • Remuneration represents by far the most important and controversial element of the employment relationship and is of equal interest to the employer and the employee.
            • The remuneration system should be based on and consistent with the principles of the organisation.
            • The criteria for determining remuneration should be objective and measurable.
            • The system should be equitable.

            Conflicts often arise around these elements and companies should be transparent, through comprehensive policies, about their position on non-discrimination, harassment or inclusion of their employees within their organisation and the markets in which they operate.

            Mediation can be a channel to help find solutions to equality and non-discrimination issues between employees within the same organisation. It also obliges companies to consider the standards of international legislation (e.g. CSRD) when implementing their policies. We are seeing that it is not a ‘nice to have’ but a ‘must have’.

            Resolving disputes with external parties

            Mediation can be used to enforce commercial contracts or in projects. It helps prevent disputes between companies or between companies and regulators, foster better relations, and ensure compliance standards are met without resorting to litigation. Mediation promotes cooperation between the parties and helps reduce the risk of future contractual violations.

            A clear example of the benefits of the use of mediation in compliance arises in the international context where legal certainty is required for both parties, as well as fair and reasonable management of a long-term project. In some cases, there is a public-private element to the dispute as the public sector is involved (either in licensing issues or as a regulatory authority). This may create some confusion in the roles and rights of the parties, which makes perfect sense when the interests of the investor (private equity) and the community or private parties are very diverse.

            For context, we might think of environmental, social and governance issues that are receiving serious attention from governments and regulators, given the impact on the planet and the people within the communities where they live. Mediation offers a way to resolve these conflicts by facilitating open communication between the parties involved. For instance, if a company is accused of breaching a country’s environmental regulations, mediation can provide a platform for the company and regulatory authorities to discuss the issues, share concerns, and negotiate a solution that satisfies both parties. Instead of pursuing punitive measures or resorting to lengthy legal battles, mediation can help parties find common ground and craft a solution that supports compliance while preserving business relationships.

            A concrete example is mining activities, which contribute greatly to the involvement of foreign entities in resource-rich countries, involving, on a large scale, both foreign and domestic interests, and potentially resulting in pollution and damage to the environment. In addition, there are various problems, especially the use of land for mining activities, which causes friction between mining companies, communities and local governments where mining activities take place. Since these projects take place over a long period of time and involve various interests of both private and public actors as well as communities, mediation is undoubtedly a good way to prevent disputes during the whole process of project development and implementation, offering in conflict situations not only a quick solution for both parties but also a fair and reasonable management of a project in the long term.

            Another tool, with elements of mediation, which is recommended for the successful completion of large projects, as for instance construction projects, are Dispute Boards, a panel of one to three members with extensive experience in the field of the contract, who accompany the execution of the contract until the work is completed on time and on budget. This method is not a pure and simple mediation, although it resembles it, because the Dispute Boards, in particular the so-called DAAB (Dispute Avoidance and Adjudication Board), permanently seek to avoid conflict and, if it arises, to encourage the parties to find a solution or to make it binding. I will go into more detail on this subject in another article.

            Hereby, we can also mention internal control and auditability towards third parties, be they customers or suppliers. The EU directive (CSDDD) puts the emphasis on indirect suppliers in the supply chain. It is therefore important that when establishing a business or investment partnership, all parties involved have a similar level of compliance with standards. In this regard, framework compliance agreements, which are compliance agreements that regulate the compliance obligations of both parties’ subject to a service contract, are very common.

            Aspects of compliance in such contracts may include, among others, anti-corruption policy, fee evasion, international sanctions, trainings, reporting requirements and ways to audit the compliance clauses agreed in the service contract, as well as the escalation clause to resolve disputes amicably, using the various existing ADR modes.

            In the context of commercial contracts, mediation is used to resolve disputes related to non-performance, late deliveries, payment problems, interpretations of clauses or any other dispute arising from a commercial agreement, including any aspect of the compliance agreement as referred to above.

            For an internationally developing company it would be advisable to promote mediation as the type of dispute resolution in conflicts with third parties. One way to promote mediation as an effective means of dispute resolution could be through a clause of voluntary submission to mediation in all transactions with third parties, followed by arbitration or submission to the courts of a certain jurisdiction, known as a tiered dispute resolution clause. These clauses provide for a gradual system of dispute resolution following various alternative methods of resolving disputes, usually culminating in arbitration if the outcome of the first alternative methods is unsuccessful.

            The choice of conflict resolution through mediation is a ‘win-win solution’, whose confidentiality is guaranteed in the face of public attention. Based on these advantages, mediation is considered more suitable to be implemented (agreed, including with the escalation clause) in a contract.

            Challenges of Mediation in International Contract Disputes

            Despite its many advantages, mediation is not without its challenges. Some of the key obstacles include:

            Lack of Enforcement Mechanisms: Mediation agreements are typically non-binding, meaning that parties are not legally required to adhere to the terms of the settlement. While mediation can result in a mutually agreed-upon solution, enforcing the agreement may require the parties to enter into further negotiations or even resort to litigation if one side fails to honour the agreement.

            Cultural and Language Barriers: In international contract disputes, cultural differences and language barriers can complicate the mediation process. It is important to select mediators who have experience with cross-cultural communication and who understand the legal systems involved. Without such expertise, the mediation process may be ineffective.

            Reluctance to Mediate: Some parties may be reluctant to mediate, especially if they perceive it as a sign of weakness or if they are unfamiliar with the process. This reluctance can be overcome with proper education and a clear understanding of the benefits of mediation.

            Although we can say that there is a growth of mediation around the world and the level of satisfaction of the use of mediation is based on its core values, which are impartiality, confidentiality and self-determination, the promotion of the mediation is still an important challenge.

            Conclusion

            In the case of internal compliance, mediation usually takes a more reactive role, i.e. when the conflict has already surfaced within the company or organisation; whereas, in the case of third party compliance, mediation takes a preventive role, such as in the case of Dispute Boards, although it also helps to resolve a commercial conflict between parties who wish to continue to maintain a business relationship. In both cases the objective is the same, to try to find common ground between the interests of the parties in order to resolve or avoid a conflict that could lead the parties to a legal dispute.

            As international trade continues to grow and the complexity of global regulations increases, businesses and organizations can benefit from adopting mediation as a strategic method for resolving conflicts. By fostering cooperation and understanding, mediation can help build stronger, more resilient business relationships and ensure long-term success in a global marketplace.

            Companies need to adhere to their own compliance programmes, but also to the programme of their customers, suppliers or banks with whom they collaborate. Not only is there a need for expertise to know the legal framework applicable to the industry, but there is also a need for conflict resolution when conflicts arise or even to act pre-emptively. Legal battles are expensive, time-consuming and damaging to business relationships. Many jurisdictions and industries are already demanding an obligation for parties to exhaust alternative dispute resolution methods before moving to the litigation phase.

            El arbitraje es un procedimiento para resolver los conflictos entre las partes que tiene gran éxito en el sistema legal anglosajón. Y bastante menos en nuestro país.

            Tiene ventajas e inconvenientes; es más caro que los Tribunales, pero es mucho más rápido; y la velocidad es esencial para que la justicia sea tal.

            Típicamente un arbitraje dura seis meses más un par de ellos para el nombramiento del árbitro; en total, en 8 meses puede estar definitivamente resuelto un conflicto, por importante y difícil que pueda ser.

            Por comparar con los Tribunales, en España hoy debemos contar con unos 18 meses de media para tener sentencia en primera instancia y otro tanto para el recurso de apelación; sin contar con posible recurso ante el Tribunal Supremo.

            La piedra angular sobre la que descansa el arbitraje es que el laudo del árbitro es final y definitivo y no admite revisión ni recurso; esta afirmación tiene determinadas excepciones fundamentalmente de carácter formal o procedimental: básicamente, la legalidad del convenio arbitral, la arbitrabilidad de la materia y la regularidad procedimental en el desarrollo del procedimiento arbitral. Estos vicios o defectos pueden ser atacados a través de un recurso de anulación del que si entiende la jurisdicción ordinaria.

            Pero además de los posibles defectos “formales”, la acción de anulación del laudo puede apoyarse en la denuncia de una infracción del “orden público” que el Tribunal Constitucional ha definido y perfilado como “aquellos principios jurídicos públicos y privados, políticos, morales y económicos que son absolutamente obligatorios para la conservación de la sociedad en un pueblo y en una época determinada”.

            Como esta definición de “orden público” es, indudablemente, amplia e inconcreta, el recurso a la vulneración del orden público como herramienta para declarar la nulidad de los laudos por la jurisdicción ordinaria, ha producido un efecto de “desbordamiento” que ha exigido, en palabras del Tribunal Constitucional “llevar a cabo una interpretación restrictiva del misma so pena de vulnerar la autonomía de la voluntad de las partes y su renuncia a la tutela jurisdiccional”.

            Así lo ha proclamado dicho Tribunal en la muy importante sentencia de 15 de febrero pasado que motiva esta nota.

            En estos últimos años el Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Madrid ha recurrido al argumento del “orden público” de manera extensiva y “desbordada” para anular laudos y “suplir al tribunal arbitral en su función de aplicar el derecho”, convirtiéndose en “una segunda instancia revisora de los hechos y derechos aplicados en el laudo, un mecanismo de control de la correcta aplicación de la jurisprudencia”.

            Y esta interpretación del orden público expansiva y “desbordada” como herramienta para anular laudos por parte del TSJM se había convertido en un grave problema para la institución arbitral y para la confianza de los contratantes a la hora de incluir convenios arbitrales en sus contratos; el principio de que el laudo era la solución definitiva y final al conflicto que pretende resolver, salvo por infracciones procedimentales o infracción del orden publico limitado a aquellos casos en los que el laudo fuera arbitrario, ilógico, absurdo o irracional, quedaba en entredicho y suponía un elemento claramente disuasorio a la hora de que los contratantes decidieran resolver sus discrepancias por medio de arbitraje.

            Pues bien, el Tribunal Constitucional de manera rotunda y explicita, repitiendo lo que ya adelantó en su sentencia de junio del año pasado, confirma que la necesidad de que el laudo no contravenga el orden público, no puede traer como consecuencia que el órgano judicial supla al árbitro en su función de aplicación del derecho, ni puede convertirse en una segunda instancia revisora de los hechos y de los fundamentos de derecho aplicados en el laudo ni un mecanismo de control de la correcta aplicación de la jurisprudencia.

            Prima el principio de la autonomía de la voluntad de las partes; y ello significa que cuando existe sometimiento a arbitraje, las partes han convenido que debe ser a través de ese cauce como han de resolverse las controversias entre ellas, mediante la decisión del arbitro que solo  podrá ser anulada a través de los estrictos cauces que la propia Ley de Arbitraje regula; insistimos, por razones procedimentales o por vulnerar el orden público en la interpretación restringida que explica la sentencia que comentamos; pero en ningún caso, a modo de una segunda instancia donde se re -evalúen de nuevo los hechos y los fundamentos de derecho aplicados.

            En suma, el arbitraje español está de enhorabuena, y podrá recuperar el impulso que le hizo perder, en parte, la interpretación extensiva del orden público que defendían algunos Tribunales Superiores de Justicia. A partir de ahora los Tribunales no podrán soslayar la interpretación del Tribunal Constitucional que supone un soplo de aire fresco para el arbitraje español.

            In an important and very reasoned judgment delivered by the Court of Cassation of France on September 30, 2020, relating to the enforceability of arbitration clauses in international consumer contracts, the Supreme Court judged that these clauses must be considered unfair and cannot be opposed to consumers.  

            The Supreme Court traditionally insisted on the priority given to the arbitrator to decide on his own jurisdiction, laid down in Article 1448 of the Code of Civil Procedure (principle known as «competence-competence», Jaguar, Civ. 1re, May 21, 1997, nos. 95-11.429 and 95-11.427). 

            The ECJ expressed its hostility towards such clauses when they are opposed to consumers. In Mostaza Claro (C-168/05), it referred to the internal laws of member states, while considering that the procedural modalities offered by states should not “make it impossible in practice or excessively difficult to exercise the rights conferred by public order to consumers (“Directive 93/13, concerning unfair terms in consumer contracts, must be interpreted as meaning that a national court seized of an action for annulment of an arbitration award must determine whether the arbitration agreement is void and annul that award where that agreement contains an unfair term, even though the consumer has not pleaded that invalidity in the course of the arbitration proceedings, but only in that of the action for annulment”).  

            It therefore referred to the national judge the right to implement its legislation on unfair terms, and therefore to decide, on a case-by-case basis, whether the arbitration clause should be considered unfair. This is what the Court of Cassation decided, ruling out the case-by-case method, and considering that in any event such a clause must be excluded in relations with consumers.  

            The Court of Cassation adopted the same solution in international employment contracts, where it traditionally considers that arbitration clauses contained in international employment contracts are enforceable against employee (Soc. 16 Feb. 1999, n ° 96-40.643). 

            The Supreme Court, although traditionally very favourable to arbitration, gradually builds up a set of specific exceptions to ensure the protection of the «weak» party.

            Unfair commercial behaviours between professionals are sanctioned in Sections L442-1 and seq. of the French Commercial Code. French Courts tend to consider that those dispositions of the Commercial Code are mandatory, in particular Section L442-1, II of the Code on abrupt termination of commercial relationships. Based on this section, an operator can be held liable if he terminates a commercial relationship without respecting a prior notice which duration depends on the duration of the relationship.

            Although this is considered to be a mandatory law, the French Supreme Court considers that it does not preclude to bring a dispute before foreign Courts in compliance with a jurisdiction clause (Civ.1, 8 July 2010, Doga, n°09-67013). Moreover, Courts have ruled for a long time now that arbitrators are entitled to apply national mandatory laws (Court of Appeal of Paris, 19 March 1993, Labinal, n°9221091). In the case Doga above quoted, the Court concluded that arbitrators are also entitled to apply Sections 442-1, II of the Commercial Code related to the conditions of termination of commercial relationship. Therefore, if a contract contains an arbitration clause, the judge is obliged to give priority to the arbitrators to decide on their own jurisdiction to decide on the case (principle « compétence-compétence ») in conformity with Section 1465 of the French Procedural Code. This solution was confirmed in a recent decision rendered on 5 September 2019 by the Court of Appeal of Paris in  Charlivari v. Sté Equivalanza, n°17/03703.

            It is noteworthy to underline that two sets of sanctions are considered under Sections 442-1 and seq. of the Commercial Code: the first sanction allows the victim of unfair practice to seek damages (for instance for abrupt termination of commercial relationship) against the author of unfair practices;  the second sanction is decided by the public administration, under the authority of the Ministry of Economics : the Ministry is entitled to bring the case to Courts, which can then decide to fine the party who is liable of unfair practices (the fine can be up to 5% of the turnover made in France by the person liable or 5 Million EUR).

            Therefore, one single matter can give rise to two procedures at the same time, the first one initiated by the victim and the second one at the request of the Ministry of Economics (Section L442-4 of the Code). In a case Apple v. Ministre de l’Economie, the Supreme Court (Civ.1, 6 juillet 2016, n° 15-21811) considered that the action of the Ministry of Economics cannot be decided by arbitrators, even if the contract contains an arbitration clause, because of the specificity of this action, which is not based on the contract by itself but on powers that the Ministry draws from the law.

            Therefore, a clear distinction must be made between the two procedures: one is subject to the application of the dispute resolution clause (either national Courts, even foreign, or arbitration tribunals), when damages are sought from the author of unfair practices, including abrupt termination; the other one can be brought only before French national Courts, and the dispute resolution clause has no effect, in cases which are brought by the Ministry of Economics for administrative sanctions against the same author.

            El procedimiento arbitral en España se caracteriza, y constituye una de sus grandes ventajas, por la dificultad de anular o revocar judicialmente el laudo; las partes saben que el laudo que se dicte es en la mayoría de los casos firme y definitivo y pone punto final al conflicto.

            El art. 41 de la Ley de Arbitraje únicamente permite la anulación del laudo por razones de forma (inexistencia o invalidez del convenio arbitral, falta de notificación a alguna de las partes sobre la designación del árbitro o de las actuaciones arbitrales, indebida designación de los árbitros o que los árbitros hayan resuelto sobre materias que no eran o no podían ser objeto de arbitraje por imperio de la ley). Y adicionalmente el laudo también es anulable cuando es contrario al “orden público”.

            Que cosa sea el “orden público” como para dar lugar, en caso de vulneración, a la anulación del laudo, es cuestión que de siempre ha sido controvertida y debatida; ya en la Convención de Nueva York de 1958 se alude el “orden público” como causa de denegación del reconocimiento de laudos extranjeros. Como recuerda el Tribunal Constitucional (“TC”) en la sentencia que comentamos, citando su propia jurisprudencia, “el orden público material es el conjunto de principios jurídicos públicos y privados, políticos, morales y económicos que son absolutamente obligatorios para la conservación de la sociedad en un pueblo y en una época determinada y el orden público procesal se configura como el conjunto de formalidades y principios necesarios de nuestro ordenamiento jurídico procesal y solo el arbitraje que contradiga alguno o algunos de tales principios podrá ser tachado de nulo por vulneración del orden público”.

            A título de ejemplo, durante 2018 se presentaron 38 demandas de anulación de laudos ante los Tribunales Superiores de Justicia (“TSJ”) de los que 31 se fundamentaban en vulneración del orden público; resultaron estimadas 8 de las demandas (21%), 5 por vulneración del orden público y 3 por invalidez del convenio arbitral.

            El TSJ de Madrid ha venido manteniendo en los últimos tiempos una interpretación muy “expansiva” del orden público, lo que ha generado dudas y temores en las instituciones y Cortes Arbitrales, por el efecto disuasorio que dicha posición podría tener a la hora de elegir Madrid como sede de arbitrajes, nacionales o internacionales.

            Y en la línea interpretativa a la que nos referimos, el TSJ de Madrid ha mantenido el siguiente y sorprendente criterio: dictado un laudo e interpuesta demanda de anulación por una de las partes, los litigantes alcanzaron un acuerdo extrajudicial y solicitaron conjuntamente  el archivo de la demanda de anulación; es decir, ambos daban el laudo por bueno y definitivo; el TSJ rechazó la petición y siguió adelante hasta dictar sentencia anulando el laudo, argumentando que como la demanda de anulación se basaba en la infracción del orden público, entonces ya la materia no era disponible por las partes y no era, en opinión del Tribunal, susceptible de transacción o renuncia.

            No era esta la primera vez que el TSJ adoptaba esta postura: impetrada la anulación de un laudo por ser contrario al “orden público”, las partes ya no tenían la posibilidad de transar y renunciar a la demanda de anulación.

            Por primera vez el asunto ha llegado al Tribunal Constitucional (TC): en un reciente fallo del 15 de junio de 2020, el TC ha sido claro y rotundo; recuerda en su sentencia que el proceso civil se fundamenta en el principio de “disposición de las partes para regular sus intereses privados, es decir, para iniciar la actividad jurisdiccional, determinar el objeto del proceso y ponerle fin cuando estimen conveniente”. Es lo que llamamos “justicia rogada”; y este principio aplica no solo a los procedimientos civiles ante los tribunales ordinarios sino también a los procedimientos arbitrales; asimismo afirma la sentencia que el arbitraje está configurado por la Ley como un mecanismo heterónomo de resolución de conflictos al que es consustancial la mínima intervención de los órganos judiciales a favor de la autonomía de la voluntad.

            Y concluye sentando que la acción de anulación debe ser entendida como un proceso de control externo sobre el laudo que no permite una decisión sobre el fondo de la decisión de los árbitros, al estar tasadas las causas, lo que justifica que “el control de los laudos tenga carácter limitado y solo pueda obtenerse la anulación del laudo en casos excepcionales”.

            En suma, entiende y proclama el TC que es contrario al derecho a la tutela judicial efectiva que protege el art. 24 de la Constitución la negativa del Tribunal a reconocer la virtualidad de un acuerdo alcanzado entre los litigantes con fundamento en el poder dispositivo de las partes sin que medie norma prohibitiva que así lo autorice e imponiendo una decisión que subvierte el principio dispositivo o de “justicia rogada” que inspira el proceso civil; por lo que concede el amparo solicitado y ordena retrotraer las actuaciones al momento anterior al auto que denegó virtualidad a la solicitud conjunta de archivo para que el TSJ dicte otra resolución acompasada al criterio del TC.

            En suma, no podrá ya nunca más el TSJM impedir a los litigantes transar y poner fin a una demanda de anulación de laudo (como ocurre pacífica y habitualmente con los recursos de apelación o de casación) y además deberá tomar en consideración en adelante la interpretación restrictiva del concepto de orden público que ha establecido el TC en esta importante sentencia. En efecto, el arbitraje español sale muy reforzado con esta sentencia del TC.

            Are arbitration and jurisdiction clauses contained in insurance contracts enforceable against a third party which is acting directly against the insurer in third party liability insurances?

            Such direct action is admitted by French law in liability insurances, as defined in article 124-3 of the Insurance Code.

            In just a few months two radically different approaches have been taken by the French Cour de cassation (Civ.1, 19 December 2018, n°17-28.951) and the ECJ in Assens Havn v. Navigator Management UK Ltd (13 July 2017, C-368/16) and KABEG v. MMA IARD (20 July 2017, C-340/16).

            The case submitted to the Cour de cassation represented a third party exercising a direct right of action before French Courts against the insurer of a floating barge which had caused him a damage. The Supreme Court accepted that the insurer could validly oppose the arbitration clause, which was in the policy against the third party, and therefore judged that French Court had no jurisdiction to decide on the case. The Supreme Court applied the well-established principle of Compétence-Compétence – materialized in article 1448 of the French Code de Procédure Civile – to stay the case, considering that the arbitration clause could not be set aside. The Court therefore judged that the applicability of the arbitration clause should be determined by the arbitrators by priority.

            A year before, the ECJ had ruled in the opposite direction in a case where a jurisdiction clause was applicable in the insurance policy. In Assens Havn v. Navigator Management UK Ltd, the ECJ stated that the clause could not be opposed to the third party acting directly against the insurer. According to the Court, the insurers’ liability towards the insured has a contractual nature when based on the policy, whereas it is extra-contractual when the liability is based on a direct action from a third party. In a previous ruling the Court had considered (Sté financière et industrielle du Peloux (12 May 2005, C-112/03) that the jurisdiction clause cannot be opposed to the beneficiary of an insurance policy if he is not the policyholder (for instance in a collective insurance).

            One sees a clear difference in treatment between arbitration clause and jurisdiction clause when it comes to deciding on their opposability to the victim exercising a direct action against the insurer.

            Article 2061 paragraph 2 of the Civil Code states that an arbitration cannot be opposed to a party which has not contracted for the purpose of its business activity. The French Cour de cassation grounded its decision on the fact that the clauses of the main contract could be opposed to the third party. If the latter was entitled to apply the insurance contract, it was therefore entitled to invoke article 2061 paragraph 2 of the Civil Code.

            On 29 March 2019 new amendments to the federal law “On arbitration in the Russian Federation” entered into force. This law regulates the order of establishment and activities of arbitration courts and permanently acting arbitration institutions (PAAI) in Russia and applies to resolution of both international and local disputes by arbitration in Russia.

            The key amendments relate to granting of rights to foreign arbitration centers to perform functions of PAAIs in Russia. Earlier such rights were granted by the government, but as from 29 March 2019 such functions were transferred to the Ministry of Justice. Ministry of Justice grants the rights to perform functions of PAAIs in Russia to foreign arbitration centers based on recommendations received from the Council on improvement of arbitrations.

            As of 31 March 2019, there are only 4 (four) PAAIs authorized to administer disputes by arbitration in Russia and all of them are Russian organizations. In accordance with the latest news the Hong Kong International Arbitration Center (HKIAC) is the first international arbitration center that has recently received a recommendation from the Council on improvement of arbitrations to establish PAAI in Russia and has been approved by the Ministry of Justice to establish PAAI in Russia. In accordance with the law an arbitration center is included in the list of PAAIs in Russia within 15 days from the date of approval by the Council, i.e. by the end of April 2019 HKIAC could become the first international arbitration center authorized to administer international disputes in Russia.

            Another issue that should be carefully considered by choosing an arbitration center relate to resolution of disputes between companies established in Russia (local disputes) by international arbitration centers not included in the list of PAAIs in Russia and not authorized to consider local disputes in Russia.

            Though there is no direct prohibition established by the Russian law to settle disputes between Russian companies by foreign arbitration centers with the seat of arbitration outside of Russia, the possibility of referral of local disputes to foreign arbitration centers is still questionable. In one of the court decisions that caused disputes in legal community (case# А40-219464/16-52-430) the Russian court of first instance ruled that resolution of local disputes by the foreign arbitration institutions violates public policy in Russia. Notwithstanding the fact that such ruling was dismissed by the higher court instance the risk that the Russian courts might deny recognition of awards of foreign arbitration institutions not included in the list of PAAIs in Russia and not authorized to consider local disputes in Russia cannot be excluded.

            Therefore, in situations when the disputes arise between companies established in Russia it would be reasonable to choose arbitration institution included in the list of PAAIs in Russia and authorized to administer local disputes in Russia or, alternatively, agree on resolution of disputes by the Russian commercial courts.

            Takeaways

            • if you agree in international contracts that the seat of arbitration is in Russia, it would be reasonable to choose the arbitration center included in the list of PAAIs in Russia and authorized to resolve international disputes in Russia.
            • If you agree in local contracts to resolve disputes by arbitration, it would be reasonable to choose the arbitration center included in the list of PAAIs in Russia and authorized to resolve local disputes in Russia.

            Javier Gaspar

            Áreas de práctica

            • Arbitraje
            • Contratos de distribución
            • Franquicia
            • Derecho Internacional Privado
            • Deporte
            Contáctanos Javier

            Contacta con Javier





              Lea la política de privacidad de Legalmondo.
              Este sitio está protegido por reCAPTCHA y se aplican la Política de privacidad de Google y los Términos de servicio.

              France – Direct action against the insurer and enforceability of arbitration clause

              29 de agosto de 2019

              • Francia
              • Arbitraje
              • Seguros
              • Litigios

              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.

              Summary: Companies with international projection and global presence can count on mediation and its benefits in the different contexts of their business, both in the compliance of the code of conduct and internal rules as well as in the compliance of contracts and projects with third parties or public authorities. In the same way, it facilitates access to a saturated justice system, while at the same time improving the relationship between the parties, as they do not have to face the wear and tear of the judicial phase, which leads to emotional wear and tear.

              I will focus on the intersection between compliance and mediation, as international corporations are increasingly interested in the potential of Mediation applied to compliance frameworks. Although there are a few important challenges that we need to mention, the benefits of international mediation are clear: costs savings, quick solutions and a good understanding between the parties. International mediation and compliance go hand in hand and, although they may not seem to have much in common, they complement each other. The purpose of this article is to illustrate with some practical examples the advantages of compliance mediation for small and medium-sized enterprises operating internationally, in order to demonstrate the potential that exists in this combination.

              Mediation is a form of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) that involves the intervention of a neutral third party, known as the mediator, to help disputing parties reach a mutually acceptable agreement. Unlike litigation, which involves a judge making a binding decision, mediation allows the parties to control the outcome, facilitating a more collaborative and flexible approach to resolving disputes.

              In the context of compliance issues and international contracts, mediation offers a unique advantage by addressing both legal and non-legal aspects of disputes, such as cultural differences, business practices, and organizational relationships. This flexibility is particularly important when dealing with international contracts, where cross-cultural understanding and respect for diverse legal systems are essential.

              The key is still the same recipe as the initial negotiation of a contract. The parties objectively and in a neutral atmosphere and collaborative approach, find ‘solutions’ to their disagreements where both parties win. The so-called win-win is still the best scenario in which the parties should meet again in dispute resolution. I always insist on the word ‘reconnect’ because of its positive connotation in any relationship. Mediation allows the parties to negotiate a mutually acceptable outcome, preserving the relationship between them, with the additional value of cost and time efficiencies and confidentiality guaranteed throughout the process.

              Mediation benefits compliance programmes in two keyways.

              Resolving internal compliance issues

              This is accomplished through facilitating communication and conflict resolution among employees, promoting a culture of dialogue, transparency and accountability. When a company uses mediation to resolve conflicts arising from internal compliance-related situations, it helps to prevent a conflict from escalating in proportions both in the form of legal action and disputes that may involve the public administration.

              A clear example is conflicts related to the code of conduct, where disputes often arise at the HR level. Another example is that arising from conflicts of interest. In both cases the connection lies in the common goal of promoting ethical behaviour, improving communication and resolving conflicts in a way that helps the employee and the company to follow its internal rules and achieve the required standards.

              Mediation opens a space for dialogue and amicable conflict resolution, facilitating employees’ professional and personal growth in a sustained way over time.

              Another example can be conflicts related to cross-border labour issues applicable to the same company, whether private, non-governmental organisation or conflicts between private and public companies. The reasons for the conflict may be related to harassment issues or pay inequality issues. For example, the internal pay system within an international organisation should consider the following elements:

              • Remuneration represents by far the most important and controversial element of the employment relationship and is of equal interest to the employer and the employee.
              • The remuneration system should be based on and consistent with the principles of the organisation.
              • The criteria for determining remuneration should be objective and measurable.
              • The system should be equitable.

              Conflicts often arise around these elements and companies should be transparent, through comprehensive policies, about their position on non-discrimination, harassment or inclusion of their employees within their organisation and the markets in which they operate.

              Mediation can be a channel to help find solutions to equality and non-discrimination issues between employees within the same organisation. It also obliges companies to consider the standards of international legislation (e.g. CSRD) when implementing their policies. We are seeing that it is not a ‘nice to have’ but a ‘must have’.

              Resolving disputes with external parties

              Mediation can be used to enforce commercial contracts or in projects. It helps prevent disputes between companies or between companies and regulators, foster better relations, and ensure compliance standards are met without resorting to litigation. Mediation promotes cooperation between the parties and helps reduce the risk of future contractual violations.

              A clear example of the benefits of the use of mediation in compliance arises in the international context where legal certainty is required for both parties, as well as fair and reasonable management of a long-term project. In some cases, there is a public-private element to the dispute as the public sector is involved (either in licensing issues or as a regulatory authority). This may create some confusion in the roles and rights of the parties, which makes perfect sense when the interests of the investor (private equity) and the community or private parties are very diverse.

              For context, we might think of environmental, social and governance issues that are receiving serious attention from governments and regulators, given the impact on the planet and the people within the communities where they live. Mediation offers a way to resolve these conflicts by facilitating open communication between the parties involved. For instance, if a company is accused of breaching a country’s environmental regulations, mediation can provide a platform for the company and regulatory authorities to discuss the issues, share concerns, and negotiate a solution that satisfies both parties. Instead of pursuing punitive measures or resorting to lengthy legal battles, mediation can help parties find common ground and craft a solution that supports compliance while preserving business relationships.

              A concrete example is mining activities, which contribute greatly to the involvement of foreign entities in resource-rich countries, involving, on a large scale, both foreign and domestic interests, and potentially resulting in pollution and damage to the environment. In addition, there are various problems, especially the use of land for mining activities, which causes friction between mining companies, communities and local governments where mining activities take place. Since these projects take place over a long period of time and involve various interests of both private and public actors as well as communities, mediation is undoubtedly a good way to prevent disputes during the whole process of project development and implementation, offering in conflict situations not only a quick solution for both parties but also a fair and reasonable management of a project in the long term.

              Another tool, with elements of mediation, which is recommended for the successful completion of large projects, as for instance construction projects, are Dispute Boards, a panel of one to three members with extensive experience in the field of the contract, who accompany the execution of the contract until the work is completed on time and on budget. This method is not a pure and simple mediation, although it resembles it, because the Dispute Boards, in particular the so-called DAAB (Dispute Avoidance and Adjudication Board), permanently seek to avoid conflict and, if it arises, to encourage the parties to find a solution or to make it binding. I will go into more detail on this subject in another article.

              Hereby, we can also mention internal control and auditability towards third parties, be they customers or suppliers. The EU directive (CSDDD) puts the emphasis on indirect suppliers in the supply chain. It is therefore important that when establishing a business or investment partnership, all parties involved have a similar level of compliance with standards. In this regard, framework compliance agreements, which are compliance agreements that regulate the compliance obligations of both parties’ subject to a service contract, are very common.

              Aspects of compliance in such contracts may include, among others, anti-corruption policy, fee evasion, international sanctions, trainings, reporting requirements and ways to audit the compliance clauses agreed in the service contract, as well as the escalation clause to resolve disputes amicably, using the various existing ADR modes.

              In the context of commercial contracts, mediation is used to resolve disputes related to non-performance, late deliveries, payment problems, interpretations of clauses or any other dispute arising from a commercial agreement, including any aspect of the compliance agreement as referred to above.

              For an internationally developing company it would be advisable to promote mediation as the type of dispute resolution in conflicts with third parties. One way to promote mediation as an effective means of dispute resolution could be through a clause of voluntary submission to mediation in all transactions with third parties, followed by arbitration or submission to the courts of a certain jurisdiction, known as a tiered dispute resolution clause. These clauses provide for a gradual system of dispute resolution following various alternative methods of resolving disputes, usually culminating in arbitration if the outcome of the first alternative methods is unsuccessful.

              The choice of conflict resolution through mediation is a ‘win-win solution’, whose confidentiality is guaranteed in the face of public attention. Based on these advantages, mediation is considered more suitable to be implemented (agreed, including with the escalation clause) in a contract.

              Challenges of Mediation in International Contract Disputes

              Despite its many advantages, mediation is not without its challenges. Some of the key obstacles include:

              Lack of Enforcement Mechanisms: Mediation agreements are typically non-binding, meaning that parties are not legally required to adhere to the terms of the settlement. While mediation can result in a mutually agreed-upon solution, enforcing the agreement may require the parties to enter into further negotiations or even resort to litigation if one side fails to honour the agreement.

              Cultural and Language Barriers: In international contract disputes, cultural differences and language barriers can complicate the mediation process. It is important to select mediators who have experience with cross-cultural communication and who understand the legal systems involved. Without such expertise, the mediation process may be ineffective.

              Reluctance to Mediate: Some parties may be reluctant to mediate, especially if they perceive it as a sign of weakness or if they are unfamiliar with the process. This reluctance can be overcome with proper education and a clear understanding of the benefits of mediation.

              Although we can say that there is a growth of mediation around the world and the level of satisfaction of the use of mediation is based on its core values, which are impartiality, confidentiality and self-determination, the promotion of the mediation is still an important challenge.

              Conclusion

              In the case of internal compliance, mediation usually takes a more reactive role, i.e. when the conflict has already surfaced within the company or organisation; whereas, in the case of third party compliance, mediation takes a preventive role, such as in the case of Dispute Boards, although it also helps to resolve a commercial conflict between parties who wish to continue to maintain a business relationship. In both cases the objective is the same, to try to find common ground between the interests of the parties in order to resolve or avoid a conflict that could lead the parties to a legal dispute.

              As international trade continues to grow and the complexity of global regulations increases, businesses and organizations can benefit from adopting mediation as a strategic method for resolving conflicts. By fostering cooperation and understanding, mediation can help build stronger, more resilient business relationships and ensure long-term success in a global marketplace.

              Companies need to adhere to their own compliance programmes, but also to the programme of their customers, suppliers or banks with whom they collaborate. Not only is there a need for expertise to know the legal framework applicable to the industry, but there is also a need for conflict resolution when conflicts arise or even to act pre-emptively. Legal battles are expensive, time-consuming and damaging to business relationships. Many jurisdictions and industries are already demanding an obligation for parties to exhaust alternative dispute resolution methods before moving to the litigation phase.

              El arbitraje es un procedimiento para resolver los conflictos entre las partes que tiene gran éxito en el sistema legal anglosajón. Y bastante menos en nuestro país.

              Tiene ventajas e inconvenientes; es más caro que los Tribunales, pero es mucho más rápido; y la velocidad es esencial para que la justicia sea tal.

              Típicamente un arbitraje dura seis meses más un par de ellos para el nombramiento del árbitro; en total, en 8 meses puede estar definitivamente resuelto un conflicto, por importante y difícil que pueda ser.

              Por comparar con los Tribunales, en España hoy debemos contar con unos 18 meses de media para tener sentencia en primera instancia y otro tanto para el recurso de apelación; sin contar con posible recurso ante el Tribunal Supremo.

              La piedra angular sobre la que descansa el arbitraje es que el laudo del árbitro es final y definitivo y no admite revisión ni recurso; esta afirmación tiene determinadas excepciones fundamentalmente de carácter formal o procedimental: básicamente, la legalidad del convenio arbitral, la arbitrabilidad de la materia y la regularidad procedimental en el desarrollo del procedimiento arbitral. Estos vicios o defectos pueden ser atacados a través de un recurso de anulación del que si entiende la jurisdicción ordinaria.

              Pero además de los posibles defectos “formales”, la acción de anulación del laudo puede apoyarse en la denuncia de una infracción del “orden público” que el Tribunal Constitucional ha definido y perfilado como “aquellos principios jurídicos públicos y privados, políticos, morales y económicos que son absolutamente obligatorios para la conservación de la sociedad en un pueblo y en una época determinada”.

              Como esta definición de “orden público” es, indudablemente, amplia e inconcreta, el recurso a la vulneración del orden público como herramienta para declarar la nulidad de los laudos por la jurisdicción ordinaria, ha producido un efecto de “desbordamiento” que ha exigido, en palabras del Tribunal Constitucional “llevar a cabo una interpretación restrictiva del misma so pena de vulnerar la autonomía de la voluntad de las partes y su renuncia a la tutela jurisdiccional”.

              Así lo ha proclamado dicho Tribunal en la muy importante sentencia de 15 de febrero pasado que motiva esta nota.

              En estos últimos años el Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Madrid ha recurrido al argumento del “orden público” de manera extensiva y “desbordada” para anular laudos y “suplir al tribunal arbitral en su función de aplicar el derecho”, convirtiéndose en “una segunda instancia revisora de los hechos y derechos aplicados en el laudo, un mecanismo de control de la correcta aplicación de la jurisprudencia”.

              Y esta interpretación del orden público expansiva y “desbordada” como herramienta para anular laudos por parte del TSJM se había convertido en un grave problema para la institución arbitral y para la confianza de los contratantes a la hora de incluir convenios arbitrales en sus contratos; el principio de que el laudo era la solución definitiva y final al conflicto que pretende resolver, salvo por infracciones procedimentales o infracción del orden publico limitado a aquellos casos en los que el laudo fuera arbitrario, ilógico, absurdo o irracional, quedaba en entredicho y suponía un elemento claramente disuasorio a la hora de que los contratantes decidieran resolver sus discrepancias por medio de arbitraje.

              Pues bien, el Tribunal Constitucional de manera rotunda y explicita, repitiendo lo que ya adelantó en su sentencia de junio del año pasado, confirma que la necesidad de que el laudo no contravenga el orden público, no puede traer como consecuencia que el órgano judicial supla al árbitro en su función de aplicación del derecho, ni puede convertirse en una segunda instancia revisora de los hechos y de los fundamentos de derecho aplicados en el laudo ni un mecanismo de control de la correcta aplicación de la jurisprudencia.

              Prima el principio de la autonomía de la voluntad de las partes; y ello significa que cuando existe sometimiento a arbitraje, las partes han convenido que debe ser a través de ese cauce como han de resolverse las controversias entre ellas, mediante la decisión del arbitro que solo  podrá ser anulada a través de los estrictos cauces que la propia Ley de Arbitraje regula; insistimos, por razones procedimentales o por vulnerar el orden público en la interpretación restringida que explica la sentencia que comentamos; pero en ningún caso, a modo de una segunda instancia donde se re -evalúen de nuevo los hechos y los fundamentos de derecho aplicados.

              En suma, el arbitraje español está de enhorabuena, y podrá recuperar el impulso que le hizo perder, en parte, la interpretación extensiva del orden público que defendían algunos Tribunales Superiores de Justicia. A partir de ahora los Tribunales no podrán soslayar la interpretación del Tribunal Constitucional que supone un soplo de aire fresco para el arbitraje español.

              In an important and very reasoned judgment delivered by the Court of Cassation of France on September 30, 2020, relating to the enforceability of arbitration clauses in international consumer contracts, the Supreme Court judged that these clauses must be considered unfair and cannot be opposed to consumers.  

              The Supreme Court traditionally insisted on the priority given to the arbitrator to decide on his own jurisdiction, laid down in Article 1448 of the Code of Civil Procedure (principle known as «competence-competence», Jaguar, Civ. 1re, May 21, 1997, nos. 95-11.429 and 95-11.427). 

              The ECJ expressed its hostility towards such clauses when they are opposed to consumers. In Mostaza Claro (C-168/05), it referred to the internal laws of member states, while considering that the procedural modalities offered by states should not “make it impossible in practice or excessively difficult to exercise the rights conferred by public order to consumers (“Directive 93/13, concerning unfair terms in consumer contracts, must be interpreted as meaning that a national court seized of an action for annulment of an arbitration award must determine whether the arbitration agreement is void and annul that award where that agreement contains an unfair term, even though the consumer has not pleaded that invalidity in the course of the arbitration proceedings, but only in that of the action for annulment”).  

              It therefore referred to the national judge the right to implement its legislation on unfair terms, and therefore to decide, on a case-by-case basis, whether the arbitration clause should be considered unfair. This is what the Court of Cassation decided, ruling out the case-by-case method, and considering that in any event such a clause must be excluded in relations with consumers.  

              The Court of Cassation adopted the same solution in international employment contracts, where it traditionally considers that arbitration clauses contained in international employment contracts are enforceable against employee (Soc. 16 Feb. 1999, n ° 96-40.643). 

              The Supreme Court, although traditionally very favourable to arbitration, gradually builds up a set of specific exceptions to ensure the protection of the «weak» party.

              Unfair commercial behaviours between professionals are sanctioned in Sections L442-1 and seq. of the French Commercial Code. French Courts tend to consider that those dispositions of the Commercial Code are mandatory, in particular Section L442-1, II of the Code on abrupt termination of commercial relationships. Based on this section, an operator can be held liable if he terminates a commercial relationship without respecting a prior notice which duration depends on the duration of the relationship.

              Although this is considered to be a mandatory law, the French Supreme Court considers that it does not preclude to bring a dispute before foreign Courts in compliance with a jurisdiction clause (Civ.1, 8 July 2010, Doga, n°09-67013). Moreover, Courts have ruled for a long time now that arbitrators are entitled to apply national mandatory laws (Court of Appeal of Paris, 19 March 1993, Labinal, n°9221091). In the case Doga above quoted, the Court concluded that arbitrators are also entitled to apply Sections 442-1, II of the Commercial Code related to the conditions of termination of commercial relationship. Therefore, if a contract contains an arbitration clause, the judge is obliged to give priority to the arbitrators to decide on their own jurisdiction to decide on the case (principle « compétence-compétence ») in conformity with Section 1465 of the French Procedural Code. This solution was confirmed in a recent decision rendered on 5 September 2019 by the Court of Appeal of Paris in  Charlivari v. Sté Equivalanza, n°17/03703.

              It is noteworthy to underline that two sets of sanctions are considered under Sections 442-1 and seq. of the Commercial Code: the first sanction allows the victim of unfair practice to seek damages (for instance for abrupt termination of commercial relationship) against the author of unfair practices;  the second sanction is decided by the public administration, under the authority of the Ministry of Economics : the Ministry is entitled to bring the case to Courts, which can then decide to fine the party who is liable of unfair practices (the fine can be up to 5% of the turnover made in France by the person liable or 5 Million EUR).

              Therefore, one single matter can give rise to two procedures at the same time, the first one initiated by the victim and the second one at the request of the Ministry of Economics (Section L442-4 of the Code). In a case Apple v. Ministre de l’Economie, the Supreme Court (Civ.1, 6 juillet 2016, n° 15-21811) considered that the action of the Ministry of Economics cannot be decided by arbitrators, even if the contract contains an arbitration clause, because of the specificity of this action, which is not based on the contract by itself but on powers that the Ministry draws from the law.

              Therefore, a clear distinction must be made between the two procedures: one is subject to the application of the dispute resolution clause (either national Courts, even foreign, or arbitration tribunals), when damages are sought from the author of unfair practices, including abrupt termination; the other one can be brought only before French national Courts, and the dispute resolution clause has no effect, in cases which are brought by the Ministry of Economics for administrative sanctions against the same author.

              El procedimiento arbitral en España se caracteriza, y constituye una de sus grandes ventajas, por la dificultad de anular o revocar judicialmente el laudo; las partes saben que el laudo que se dicte es en la mayoría de los casos firme y definitivo y pone punto final al conflicto.

              El art. 41 de la Ley de Arbitraje únicamente permite la anulación del laudo por razones de forma (inexistencia o invalidez del convenio arbitral, falta de notificación a alguna de las partes sobre la designación del árbitro o de las actuaciones arbitrales, indebida designación de los árbitros o que los árbitros hayan resuelto sobre materias que no eran o no podían ser objeto de arbitraje por imperio de la ley). Y adicionalmente el laudo también es anulable cuando es contrario al “orden público”.

              Que cosa sea el “orden público” como para dar lugar, en caso de vulneración, a la anulación del laudo, es cuestión que de siempre ha sido controvertida y debatida; ya en la Convención de Nueva York de 1958 se alude el “orden público” como causa de denegación del reconocimiento de laudos extranjeros. Como recuerda el Tribunal Constitucional (“TC”) en la sentencia que comentamos, citando su propia jurisprudencia, “el orden público material es el conjunto de principios jurídicos públicos y privados, políticos, morales y económicos que son absolutamente obligatorios para la conservación de la sociedad en un pueblo y en una época determinada y el orden público procesal se configura como el conjunto de formalidades y principios necesarios de nuestro ordenamiento jurídico procesal y solo el arbitraje que contradiga alguno o algunos de tales principios podrá ser tachado de nulo por vulneración del orden público”.

              A título de ejemplo, durante 2018 se presentaron 38 demandas de anulación de laudos ante los Tribunales Superiores de Justicia (“TSJ”) de los que 31 se fundamentaban en vulneración del orden público; resultaron estimadas 8 de las demandas (21%), 5 por vulneración del orden público y 3 por invalidez del convenio arbitral.

              El TSJ de Madrid ha venido manteniendo en los últimos tiempos una interpretación muy “expansiva” del orden público, lo que ha generado dudas y temores en las instituciones y Cortes Arbitrales, por el efecto disuasorio que dicha posición podría tener a la hora de elegir Madrid como sede de arbitrajes, nacionales o internacionales.

              Y en la línea interpretativa a la que nos referimos, el TSJ de Madrid ha mantenido el siguiente y sorprendente criterio: dictado un laudo e interpuesta demanda de anulación por una de las partes, los litigantes alcanzaron un acuerdo extrajudicial y solicitaron conjuntamente  el archivo de la demanda de anulación; es decir, ambos daban el laudo por bueno y definitivo; el TSJ rechazó la petición y siguió adelante hasta dictar sentencia anulando el laudo, argumentando que como la demanda de anulación se basaba en la infracción del orden público, entonces ya la materia no era disponible por las partes y no era, en opinión del Tribunal, susceptible de transacción o renuncia.

              No era esta la primera vez que el TSJ adoptaba esta postura: impetrada la anulación de un laudo por ser contrario al “orden público”, las partes ya no tenían la posibilidad de transar y renunciar a la demanda de anulación.

              Por primera vez el asunto ha llegado al Tribunal Constitucional (TC): en un reciente fallo del 15 de junio de 2020, el TC ha sido claro y rotundo; recuerda en su sentencia que el proceso civil se fundamenta en el principio de “disposición de las partes para regular sus intereses privados, es decir, para iniciar la actividad jurisdiccional, determinar el objeto del proceso y ponerle fin cuando estimen conveniente”. Es lo que llamamos “justicia rogada”; y este principio aplica no solo a los procedimientos civiles ante los tribunales ordinarios sino también a los procedimientos arbitrales; asimismo afirma la sentencia que el arbitraje está configurado por la Ley como un mecanismo heterónomo de resolución de conflictos al que es consustancial la mínima intervención de los órganos judiciales a favor de la autonomía de la voluntad.

              Y concluye sentando que la acción de anulación debe ser entendida como un proceso de control externo sobre el laudo que no permite una decisión sobre el fondo de la decisión de los árbitros, al estar tasadas las causas, lo que justifica que “el control de los laudos tenga carácter limitado y solo pueda obtenerse la anulación del laudo en casos excepcionales”.

              En suma, entiende y proclama el TC que es contrario al derecho a la tutela judicial efectiva que protege el art. 24 de la Constitución la negativa del Tribunal a reconocer la virtualidad de un acuerdo alcanzado entre los litigantes con fundamento en el poder dispositivo de las partes sin que medie norma prohibitiva que así lo autorice e imponiendo una decisión que subvierte el principio dispositivo o de “justicia rogada” que inspira el proceso civil; por lo que concede el amparo solicitado y ordena retrotraer las actuaciones al momento anterior al auto que denegó virtualidad a la solicitud conjunta de archivo para que el TSJ dicte otra resolución acompasada al criterio del TC.

              En suma, no podrá ya nunca más el TSJM impedir a los litigantes transar y poner fin a una demanda de anulación de laudo (como ocurre pacífica y habitualmente con los recursos de apelación o de casación) y además deberá tomar en consideración en adelante la interpretación restrictiva del concepto de orden público que ha establecido el TC en esta importante sentencia. En efecto, el arbitraje español sale muy reforzado con esta sentencia del TC.

              Are arbitration and jurisdiction clauses contained in insurance contracts enforceable against a third party which is acting directly against the insurer in third party liability insurances?

              Such direct action is admitted by French law in liability insurances, as defined in article 124-3 of the Insurance Code.

              In just a few months two radically different approaches have been taken by the French Cour de cassation (Civ.1, 19 December 2018, n°17-28.951) and the ECJ in Assens Havn v. Navigator Management UK Ltd (13 July 2017, C-368/16) and KABEG v. MMA IARD (20 July 2017, C-340/16).

              The case submitted to the Cour de cassation represented a third party exercising a direct right of action before French Courts against the insurer of a floating barge which had caused him a damage. The Supreme Court accepted that the insurer could validly oppose the arbitration clause, which was in the policy against the third party, and therefore judged that French Court had no jurisdiction to decide on the case. The Supreme Court applied the well-established principle of Compétence-Compétence – materialized in article 1448 of the French Code de Procédure Civile – to stay the case, considering that the arbitration clause could not be set aside. The Court therefore judged that the applicability of the arbitration clause should be determined by the arbitrators by priority.

              A year before, the ECJ had ruled in the opposite direction in a case where a jurisdiction clause was applicable in the insurance policy. In Assens Havn v. Navigator Management UK Ltd, the ECJ stated that the clause could not be opposed to the third party acting directly against the insurer. According to the Court, the insurers’ liability towards the insured has a contractual nature when based on the policy, whereas it is extra-contractual when the liability is based on a direct action from a third party. In a previous ruling the Court had considered (Sté financière et industrielle du Peloux (12 May 2005, C-112/03) that the jurisdiction clause cannot be opposed to the beneficiary of an insurance policy if he is not the policyholder (for instance in a collective insurance).

              One sees a clear difference in treatment between arbitration clause and jurisdiction clause when it comes to deciding on their opposability to the victim exercising a direct action against the insurer.

              Article 2061 paragraph 2 of the Civil Code states that an arbitration cannot be opposed to a party which has not contracted for the purpose of its business activity. The French Cour de cassation grounded its decision on the fact that the clauses of the main contract could be opposed to the third party. If the latter was entitled to apply the insurance contract, it was therefore entitled to invoke article 2061 paragraph 2 of the Civil Code.

              On 29 March 2019 new amendments to the federal law “On arbitration in the Russian Federation” entered into force. This law regulates the order of establishment and activities of arbitration courts and permanently acting arbitration institutions (PAAI) in Russia and applies to resolution of both international and local disputes by arbitration in Russia.

              The key amendments relate to granting of rights to foreign arbitration centers to perform functions of PAAIs in Russia. Earlier such rights were granted by the government, but as from 29 March 2019 such functions were transferred to the Ministry of Justice. Ministry of Justice grants the rights to perform functions of PAAIs in Russia to foreign arbitration centers based on recommendations received from the Council on improvement of arbitrations.

              As of 31 March 2019, there are only 4 (four) PAAIs authorized to administer disputes by arbitration in Russia and all of them are Russian organizations. In accordance with the latest news the Hong Kong International Arbitration Center (HKIAC) is the first international arbitration center that has recently received a recommendation from the Council on improvement of arbitrations to establish PAAI in Russia and has been approved by the Ministry of Justice to establish PAAI in Russia. In accordance with the law an arbitration center is included in the list of PAAIs in Russia within 15 days from the date of approval by the Council, i.e. by the end of April 2019 HKIAC could become the first international arbitration center authorized to administer international disputes in Russia.

              Another issue that should be carefully considered by choosing an arbitration center relate to resolution of disputes between companies established in Russia (local disputes) by international arbitration centers not included in the list of PAAIs in Russia and not authorized to consider local disputes in Russia.

              Though there is no direct prohibition established by the Russian law to settle disputes between Russian companies by foreign arbitration centers with the seat of arbitration outside of Russia, the possibility of referral of local disputes to foreign arbitration centers is still questionable. In one of the court decisions that caused disputes in legal community (case# А40-219464/16-52-430) the Russian court of first instance ruled that resolution of local disputes by the foreign arbitration institutions violates public policy in Russia. Notwithstanding the fact that such ruling was dismissed by the higher court instance the risk that the Russian courts might deny recognition of awards of foreign arbitration institutions not included in the list of PAAIs in Russia and not authorized to consider local disputes in Russia cannot be excluded.

              Therefore, in situations when the disputes arise between companies established in Russia it would be reasonable to choose arbitration institution included in the list of PAAIs in Russia and authorized to administer local disputes in Russia or, alternatively, agree on resolution of disputes by the Russian commercial courts.

              Takeaways

              • if you agree in international contracts that the seat of arbitration is in Russia, it would be reasonable to choose the arbitration center included in the list of PAAIs in Russia and authorized to resolve international disputes in Russia.
              • If you agree in local contracts to resolve disputes by arbitration, it would be reasonable to choose the arbitration center included in the list of PAAIs in Russia and authorized to resolve local disputes in Russia.

              Alexandre Malan

              Áreas de práctica

              • Arbitraje
              • Contratos de distribución
              • Seguros
              • Comercio internacional
              • Derecho Internacional Privado
              Contáctanos Alexandre

              Contacta con Alexandre





                Lea la política de privacidad de Legalmondo.
                Este sitio está protegido por reCAPTCHA y se aplican la Política de privacidad de Google y los Términos de servicio.

                Arbitration in the Russian Federation – Latest amendments to the federal law

                9 de abril de 2019

                • Rusia
                • Arbitraje

                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.

                Summary: Companies with international projection and global presence can count on mediation and its benefits in the different contexts of their business, both in the compliance of the code of conduct and internal rules as well as in the compliance of contracts and projects with third parties or public authorities. In the same way, it facilitates access to a saturated justice system, while at the same time improving the relationship between the parties, as they do not have to face the wear and tear of the judicial phase, which leads to emotional wear and tear.

                I will focus on the intersection between compliance and mediation, as international corporations are increasingly interested in the potential of Mediation applied to compliance frameworks. Although there are a few important challenges that we need to mention, the benefits of international mediation are clear: costs savings, quick solutions and a good understanding between the parties. International mediation and compliance go hand in hand and, although they may not seem to have much in common, they complement each other. The purpose of this article is to illustrate with some practical examples the advantages of compliance mediation for small and medium-sized enterprises operating internationally, in order to demonstrate the potential that exists in this combination.

                Mediation is a form of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) that involves the intervention of a neutral third party, known as the mediator, to help disputing parties reach a mutually acceptable agreement. Unlike litigation, which involves a judge making a binding decision, mediation allows the parties to control the outcome, facilitating a more collaborative and flexible approach to resolving disputes.

                In the context of compliance issues and international contracts, mediation offers a unique advantage by addressing both legal and non-legal aspects of disputes, such as cultural differences, business practices, and organizational relationships. This flexibility is particularly important when dealing with international contracts, where cross-cultural understanding and respect for diverse legal systems are essential.

                The key is still the same recipe as the initial negotiation of a contract. The parties objectively and in a neutral atmosphere and collaborative approach, find ‘solutions’ to their disagreements where both parties win. The so-called win-win is still the best scenario in which the parties should meet again in dispute resolution. I always insist on the word ‘reconnect’ because of its positive connotation in any relationship. Mediation allows the parties to negotiate a mutually acceptable outcome, preserving the relationship between them, with the additional value of cost and time efficiencies and confidentiality guaranteed throughout the process.

                Mediation benefits compliance programmes in two keyways.

                Resolving internal compliance issues

                This is accomplished through facilitating communication and conflict resolution among employees, promoting a culture of dialogue, transparency and accountability. When a company uses mediation to resolve conflicts arising from internal compliance-related situations, it helps to prevent a conflict from escalating in proportions both in the form of legal action and disputes that may involve the public administration.

                A clear example is conflicts related to the code of conduct, where disputes often arise at the HR level. Another example is that arising from conflicts of interest. In both cases the connection lies in the common goal of promoting ethical behaviour, improving communication and resolving conflicts in a way that helps the employee and the company to follow its internal rules and achieve the required standards.

                Mediation opens a space for dialogue and amicable conflict resolution, facilitating employees’ professional and personal growth in a sustained way over time.

                Another example can be conflicts related to cross-border labour issues applicable to the same company, whether private, non-governmental organisation or conflicts between private and public companies. The reasons for the conflict may be related to harassment issues or pay inequality issues. For example, the internal pay system within an international organisation should consider the following elements:

                • Remuneration represents by far the most important and controversial element of the employment relationship and is of equal interest to the employer and the employee.
                • The remuneration system should be based on and consistent with the principles of the organisation.
                • The criteria for determining remuneration should be objective and measurable.
                • The system should be equitable.

                Conflicts often arise around these elements and companies should be transparent, through comprehensive policies, about their position on non-discrimination, harassment or inclusion of their employees within their organisation and the markets in which they operate.

                Mediation can be a channel to help find solutions to equality and non-discrimination issues between employees within the same organisation. It also obliges companies to consider the standards of international legislation (e.g. CSRD) when implementing their policies. We are seeing that it is not a ‘nice to have’ but a ‘must have’.

                Resolving disputes with external parties

                Mediation can be used to enforce commercial contracts or in projects. It helps prevent disputes between companies or between companies and regulators, foster better relations, and ensure compliance standards are met without resorting to litigation. Mediation promotes cooperation between the parties and helps reduce the risk of future contractual violations.

                A clear example of the benefits of the use of mediation in compliance arises in the international context where legal certainty is required for both parties, as well as fair and reasonable management of a long-term project. In some cases, there is a public-private element to the dispute as the public sector is involved (either in licensing issues or as a regulatory authority). This may create some confusion in the roles and rights of the parties, which makes perfect sense when the interests of the investor (private equity) and the community or private parties are very diverse.

                For context, we might think of environmental, social and governance issues that are receiving serious attention from governments and regulators, given the impact on the planet and the people within the communities where they live. Mediation offers a way to resolve these conflicts by facilitating open communication between the parties involved. For instance, if a company is accused of breaching a country’s environmental regulations, mediation can provide a platform for the company and regulatory authorities to discuss the issues, share concerns, and negotiate a solution that satisfies both parties. Instead of pursuing punitive measures or resorting to lengthy legal battles, mediation can help parties find common ground and craft a solution that supports compliance while preserving business relationships.

                A concrete example is mining activities, which contribute greatly to the involvement of foreign entities in resource-rich countries, involving, on a large scale, both foreign and domestic interests, and potentially resulting in pollution and damage to the environment. In addition, there are various problems, especially the use of land for mining activities, which causes friction between mining companies, communities and local governments where mining activities take place. Since these projects take place over a long period of time and involve various interests of both private and public actors as well as communities, mediation is undoubtedly a good way to prevent disputes during the whole process of project development and implementation, offering in conflict situations not only a quick solution for both parties but also a fair and reasonable management of a project in the long term.

                Another tool, with elements of mediation, which is recommended for the successful completion of large projects, as for instance construction projects, are Dispute Boards, a panel of one to three members with extensive experience in the field of the contract, who accompany the execution of the contract until the work is completed on time and on budget. This method is not a pure and simple mediation, although it resembles it, because the Dispute Boards, in particular the so-called DAAB (Dispute Avoidance and Adjudication Board), permanently seek to avoid conflict and, if it arises, to encourage the parties to find a solution or to make it binding. I will go into more detail on this subject in another article.

                Hereby, we can also mention internal control and auditability towards third parties, be they customers or suppliers. The EU directive (CSDDD) puts the emphasis on indirect suppliers in the supply chain. It is therefore important that when establishing a business or investment partnership, all parties involved have a similar level of compliance with standards. In this regard, framework compliance agreements, which are compliance agreements that regulate the compliance obligations of both parties’ subject to a service contract, are very common.

                Aspects of compliance in such contracts may include, among others, anti-corruption policy, fee evasion, international sanctions, trainings, reporting requirements and ways to audit the compliance clauses agreed in the service contract, as well as the escalation clause to resolve disputes amicably, using the various existing ADR modes.

                In the context of commercial contracts, mediation is used to resolve disputes related to non-performance, late deliveries, payment problems, interpretations of clauses or any other dispute arising from a commercial agreement, including any aspect of the compliance agreement as referred to above.

                For an internationally developing company it would be advisable to promote mediation as the type of dispute resolution in conflicts with third parties. One way to promote mediation as an effective means of dispute resolution could be through a clause of voluntary submission to mediation in all transactions with third parties, followed by arbitration or submission to the courts of a certain jurisdiction, known as a tiered dispute resolution clause. These clauses provide for a gradual system of dispute resolution following various alternative methods of resolving disputes, usually culminating in arbitration if the outcome of the first alternative methods is unsuccessful.

                The choice of conflict resolution through mediation is a ‘win-win solution’, whose confidentiality is guaranteed in the face of public attention. Based on these advantages, mediation is considered more suitable to be implemented (agreed, including with the escalation clause) in a contract.

                Challenges of Mediation in International Contract Disputes

                Despite its many advantages, mediation is not without its challenges. Some of the key obstacles include:

                Lack of Enforcement Mechanisms: Mediation agreements are typically non-binding, meaning that parties are not legally required to adhere to the terms of the settlement. While mediation can result in a mutually agreed-upon solution, enforcing the agreement may require the parties to enter into further negotiations or even resort to litigation if one side fails to honour the agreement.

                Cultural and Language Barriers: In international contract disputes, cultural differences and language barriers can complicate the mediation process. It is important to select mediators who have experience with cross-cultural communication and who understand the legal systems involved. Without such expertise, the mediation process may be ineffective.

                Reluctance to Mediate: Some parties may be reluctant to mediate, especially if they perceive it as a sign of weakness or if they are unfamiliar with the process. This reluctance can be overcome with proper education and a clear understanding of the benefits of mediation.

                Although we can say that there is a growth of mediation around the world and the level of satisfaction of the use of mediation is based on its core values, which are impartiality, confidentiality and self-determination, the promotion of the mediation is still an important challenge.

                Conclusion

                In the case of internal compliance, mediation usually takes a more reactive role, i.e. when the conflict has already surfaced within the company or organisation; whereas, in the case of third party compliance, mediation takes a preventive role, such as in the case of Dispute Boards, although it also helps to resolve a commercial conflict between parties who wish to continue to maintain a business relationship. In both cases the objective is the same, to try to find common ground between the interests of the parties in order to resolve or avoid a conflict that could lead the parties to a legal dispute.

                As international trade continues to grow and the complexity of global regulations increases, businesses and organizations can benefit from adopting mediation as a strategic method for resolving conflicts. By fostering cooperation and understanding, mediation can help build stronger, more resilient business relationships and ensure long-term success in a global marketplace.

                Companies need to adhere to their own compliance programmes, but also to the programme of their customers, suppliers or banks with whom they collaborate. Not only is there a need for expertise to know the legal framework applicable to the industry, but there is also a need for conflict resolution when conflicts arise or even to act pre-emptively. Legal battles are expensive, time-consuming and damaging to business relationships. Many jurisdictions and industries are already demanding an obligation for parties to exhaust alternative dispute resolution methods before moving to the litigation phase.

                El arbitraje es un procedimiento para resolver los conflictos entre las partes que tiene gran éxito en el sistema legal anglosajón. Y bastante menos en nuestro país.

                Tiene ventajas e inconvenientes; es más caro que los Tribunales, pero es mucho más rápido; y la velocidad es esencial para que la justicia sea tal.

                Típicamente un arbitraje dura seis meses más un par de ellos para el nombramiento del árbitro; en total, en 8 meses puede estar definitivamente resuelto un conflicto, por importante y difícil que pueda ser.

                Por comparar con los Tribunales, en España hoy debemos contar con unos 18 meses de media para tener sentencia en primera instancia y otro tanto para el recurso de apelación; sin contar con posible recurso ante el Tribunal Supremo.

                La piedra angular sobre la que descansa el arbitraje es que el laudo del árbitro es final y definitivo y no admite revisión ni recurso; esta afirmación tiene determinadas excepciones fundamentalmente de carácter formal o procedimental: básicamente, la legalidad del convenio arbitral, la arbitrabilidad de la materia y la regularidad procedimental en el desarrollo del procedimiento arbitral. Estos vicios o defectos pueden ser atacados a través de un recurso de anulación del que si entiende la jurisdicción ordinaria.

                Pero además de los posibles defectos “formales”, la acción de anulación del laudo puede apoyarse en la denuncia de una infracción del “orden público” que el Tribunal Constitucional ha definido y perfilado como “aquellos principios jurídicos públicos y privados, políticos, morales y económicos que son absolutamente obligatorios para la conservación de la sociedad en un pueblo y en una época determinada”.

                Como esta definición de “orden público” es, indudablemente, amplia e inconcreta, el recurso a la vulneración del orden público como herramienta para declarar la nulidad de los laudos por la jurisdicción ordinaria, ha producido un efecto de “desbordamiento” que ha exigido, en palabras del Tribunal Constitucional “llevar a cabo una interpretación restrictiva del misma so pena de vulnerar la autonomía de la voluntad de las partes y su renuncia a la tutela jurisdiccional”.

                Así lo ha proclamado dicho Tribunal en la muy importante sentencia de 15 de febrero pasado que motiva esta nota.

                En estos últimos años el Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Madrid ha recurrido al argumento del “orden público” de manera extensiva y “desbordada” para anular laudos y “suplir al tribunal arbitral en su función de aplicar el derecho”, convirtiéndose en “una segunda instancia revisora de los hechos y derechos aplicados en el laudo, un mecanismo de control de la correcta aplicación de la jurisprudencia”.

                Y esta interpretación del orden público expansiva y “desbordada” como herramienta para anular laudos por parte del TSJM se había convertido en un grave problema para la institución arbitral y para la confianza de los contratantes a la hora de incluir convenios arbitrales en sus contratos; el principio de que el laudo era la solución definitiva y final al conflicto que pretende resolver, salvo por infracciones procedimentales o infracción del orden publico limitado a aquellos casos en los que el laudo fuera arbitrario, ilógico, absurdo o irracional, quedaba en entredicho y suponía un elemento claramente disuasorio a la hora de que los contratantes decidieran resolver sus discrepancias por medio de arbitraje.

                Pues bien, el Tribunal Constitucional de manera rotunda y explicita, repitiendo lo que ya adelantó en su sentencia de junio del año pasado, confirma que la necesidad de que el laudo no contravenga el orden público, no puede traer como consecuencia que el órgano judicial supla al árbitro en su función de aplicación del derecho, ni puede convertirse en una segunda instancia revisora de los hechos y de los fundamentos de derecho aplicados en el laudo ni un mecanismo de control de la correcta aplicación de la jurisprudencia.

                Prima el principio de la autonomía de la voluntad de las partes; y ello significa que cuando existe sometimiento a arbitraje, las partes han convenido que debe ser a través de ese cauce como han de resolverse las controversias entre ellas, mediante la decisión del arbitro que solo  podrá ser anulada a través de los estrictos cauces que la propia Ley de Arbitraje regula; insistimos, por razones procedimentales o por vulnerar el orden público en la interpretación restringida que explica la sentencia que comentamos; pero en ningún caso, a modo de una segunda instancia donde se re -evalúen de nuevo los hechos y los fundamentos de derecho aplicados.

                En suma, el arbitraje español está de enhorabuena, y podrá recuperar el impulso que le hizo perder, en parte, la interpretación extensiva del orden público que defendían algunos Tribunales Superiores de Justicia. A partir de ahora los Tribunales no podrán soslayar la interpretación del Tribunal Constitucional que supone un soplo de aire fresco para el arbitraje español.

                In an important and very reasoned judgment delivered by the Court of Cassation of France on September 30, 2020, relating to the enforceability of arbitration clauses in international consumer contracts, the Supreme Court judged that these clauses must be considered unfair and cannot be opposed to consumers.  

                The Supreme Court traditionally insisted on the priority given to the arbitrator to decide on his own jurisdiction, laid down in Article 1448 of the Code of Civil Procedure (principle known as «competence-competence», Jaguar, Civ. 1re, May 21, 1997, nos. 95-11.429 and 95-11.427). 

                The ECJ expressed its hostility towards such clauses when they are opposed to consumers. In Mostaza Claro (C-168/05), it referred to the internal laws of member states, while considering that the procedural modalities offered by states should not “make it impossible in practice or excessively difficult to exercise the rights conferred by public order to consumers (“Directive 93/13, concerning unfair terms in consumer contracts, must be interpreted as meaning that a national court seized of an action for annulment of an arbitration award must determine whether the arbitration agreement is void and annul that award where that agreement contains an unfair term, even though the consumer has not pleaded that invalidity in the course of the arbitration proceedings, but only in that of the action for annulment”).  

                It therefore referred to the national judge the right to implement its legislation on unfair terms, and therefore to decide, on a case-by-case basis, whether the arbitration clause should be considered unfair. This is what the Court of Cassation decided, ruling out the case-by-case method, and considering that in any event such a clause must be excluded in relations with consumers.  

                The Court of Cassation adopted the same solution in international employment contracts, where it traditionally considers that arbitration clauses contained in international employment contracts are enforceable against employee (Soc. 16 Feb. 1999, n ° 96-40.643). 

                The Supreme Court, although traditionally very favourable to arbitration, gradually builds up a set of specific exceptions to ensure the protection of the «weak» party.

                Unfair commercial behaviours between professionals are sanctioned in Sections L442-1 and seq. of the French Commercial Code. French Courts tend to consider that those dispositions of the Commercial Code are mandatory, in particular Section L442-1, II of the Code on abrupt termination of commercial relationships. Based on this section, an operator can be held liable if he terminates a commercial relationship without respecting a prior notice which duration depends on the duration of the relationship.

                Although this is considered to be a mandatory law, the French Supreme Court considers that it does not preclude to bring a dispute before foreign Courts in compliance with a jurisdiction clause (Civ.1, 8 July 2010, Doga, n°09-67013). Moreover, Courts have ruled for a long time now that arbitrators are entitled to apply national mandatory laws (Court of Appeal of Paris, 19 March 1993, Labinal, n°9221091). In the case Doga above quoted, the Court concluded that arbitrators are also entitled to apply Sections 442-1, II of the Commercial Code related to the conditions of termination of commercial relationship. Therefore, if a contract contains an arbitration clause, the judge is obliged to give priority to the arbitrators to decide on their own jurisdiction to decide on the case (principle « compétence-compétence ») in conformity with Section 1465 of the French Procedural Code. This solution was confirmed in a recent decision rendered on 5 September 2019 by the Court of Appeal of Paris in  Charlivari v. Sté Equivalanza, n°17/03703.

                It is noteworthy to underline that two sets of sanctions are considered under Sections 442-1 and seq. of the Commercial Code: the first sanction allows the victim of unfair practice to seek damages (for instance for abrupt termination of commercial relationship) against the author of unfair practices;  the second sanction is decided by the public administration, under the authority of the Ministry of Economics : the Ministry is entitled to bring the case to Courts, which can then decide to fine the party who is liable of unfair practices (the fine can be up to 5% of the turnover made in France by the person liable or 5 Million EUR).

                Therefore, one single matter can give rise to two procedures at the same time, the first one initiated by the victim and the second one at the request of the Ministry of Economics (Section L442-4 of the Code). In a case Apple v. Ministre de l’Economie, the Supreme Court (Civ.1, 6 juillet 2016, n° 15-21811) considered that the action of the Ministry of Economics cannot be decided by arbitrators, even if the contract contains an arbitration clause, because of the specificity of this action, which is not based on the contract by itself but on powers that the Ministry draws from the law.

                Therefore, a clear distinction must be made between the two procedures: one is subject to the application of the dispute resolution clause (either national Courts, even foreign, or arbitration tribunals), when damages are sought from the author of unfair practices, including abrupt termination; the other one can be brought only before French national Courts, and the dispute resolution clause has no effect, in cases which are brought by the Ministry of Economics for administrative sanctions against the same author.

                El procedimiento arbitral en España se caracteriza, y constituye una de sus grandes ventajas, por la dificultad de anular o revocar judicialmente el laudo; las partes saben que el laudo que se dicte es en la mayoría de los casos firme y definitivo y pone punto final al conflicto.

                El art. 41 de la Ley de Arbitraje únicamente permite la anulación del laudo por razones de forma (inexistencia o invalidez del convenio arbitral, falta de notificación a alguna de las partes sobre la designación del árbitro o de las actuaciones arbitrales, indebida designación de los árbitros o que los árbitros hayan resuelto sobre materias que no eran o no podían ser objeto de arbitraje por imperio de la ley). Y adicionalmente el laudo también es anulable cuando es contrario al “orden público”.

                Que cosa sea el “orden público” como para dar lugar, en caso de vulneración, a la anulación del laudo, es cuestión que de siempre ha sido controvertida y debatida; ya en la Convención de Nueva York de 1958 se alude el “orden público” como causa de denegación del reconocimiento de laudos extranjeros. Como recuerda el Tribunal Constitucional (“TC”) en la sentencia que comentamos, citando su propia jurisprudencia, “el orden público material es el conjunto de principios jurídicos públicos y privados, políticos, morales y económicos que son absolutamente obligatorios para la conservación de la sociedad en un pueblo y en una época determinada y el orden público procesal se configura como el conjunto de formalidades y principios necesarios de nuestro ordenamiento jurídico procesal y solo el arbitraje que contradiga alguno o algunos de tales principios podrá ser tachado de nulo por vulneración del orden público”.

                A título de ejemplo, durante 2018 se presentaron 38 demandas de anulación de laudos ante los Tribunales Superiores de Justicia (“TSJ”) de los que 31 se fundamentaban en vulneración del orden público; resultaron estimadas 8 de las demandas (21%), 5 por vulneración del orden público y 3 por invalidez del convenio arbitral.

                El TSJ de Madrid ha venido manteniendo en los últimos tiempos una interpretación muy “expansiva” del orden público, lo que ha generado dudas y temores en las instituciones y Cortes Arbitrales, por el efecto disuasorio que dicha posición podría tener a la hora de elegir Madrid como sede de arbitrajes, nacionales o internacionales.

                Y en la línea interpretativa a la que nos referimos, el TSJ de Madrid ha mantenido el siguiente y sorprendente criterio: dictado un laudo e interpuesta demanda de anulación por una de las partes, los litigantes alcanzaron un acuerdo extrajudicial y solicitaron conjuntamente  el archivo de la demanda de anulación; es decir, ambos daban el laudo por bueno y definitivo; el TSJ rechazó la petición y siguió adelante hasta dictar sentencia anulando el laudo, argumentando que como la demanda de anulación se basaba en la infracción del orden público, entonces ya la materia no era disponible por las partes y no era, en opinión del Tribunal, susceptible de transacción o renuncia.

                No era esta la primera vez que el TSJ adoptaba esta postura: impetrada la anulación de un laudo por ser contrario al “orden público”, las partes ya no tenían la posibilidad de transar y renunciar a la demanda de anulación.

                Por primera vez el asunto ha llegado al Tribunal Constitucional (TC): en un reciente fallo del 15 de junio de 2020, el TC ha sido claro y rotundo; recuerda en su sentencia que el proceso civil se fundamenta en el principio de “disposición de las partes para regular sus intereses privados, es decir, para iniciar la actividad jurisdiccional, determinar el objeto del proceso y ponerle fin cuando estimen conveniente”. Es lo que llamamos “justicia rogada”; y este principio aplica no solo a los procedimientos civiles ante los tribunales ordinarios sino también a los procedimientos arbitrales; asimismo afirma la sentencia que el arbitraje está configurado por la Ley como un mecanismo heterónomo de resolución de conflictos al que es consustancial la mínima intervención de los órganos judiciales a favor de la autonomía de la voluntad.

                Y concluye sentando que la acción de anulación debe ser entendida como un proceso de control externo sobre el laudo que no permite una decisión sobre el fondo de la decisión de los árbitros, al estar tasadas las causas, lo que justifica que “el control de los laudos tenga carácter limitado y solo pueda obtenerse la anulación del laudo en casos excepcionales”.

                En suma, entiende y proclama el TC que es contrario al derecho a la tutela judicial efectiva que protege el art. 24 de la Constitución la negativa del Tribunal a reconocer la virtualidad de un acuerdo alcanzado entre los litigantes con fundamento en el poder dispositivo de las partes sin que medie norma prohibitiva que así lo autorice e imponiendo una decisión que subvierte el principio dispositivo o de “justicia rogada” que inspira el proceso civil; por lo que concede el amparo solicitado y ordena retrotraer las actuaciones al momento anterior al auto que denegó virtualidad a la solicitud conjunta de archivo para que el TSJ dicte otra resolución acompasada al criterio del TC.

                En suma, no podrá ya nunca más el TSJM impedir a los litigantes transar y poner fin a una demanda de anulación de laudo (como ocurre pacífica y habitualmente con los recursos de apelación o de casación) y además deberá tomar en consideración en adelante la interpretación restrictiva del concepto de orden público que ha establecido el TC en esta importante sentencia. En efecto, el arbitraje español sale muy reforzado con esta sentencia del TC.

                Are arbitration and jurisdiction clauses contained in insurance contracts enforceable against a third party which is acting directly against the insurer in third party liability insurances?

                Such direct action is admitted by French law in liability insurances, as defined in article 124-3 of the Insurance Code.

                In just a few months two radically different approaches have been taken by the French Cour de cassation (Civ.1, 19 December 2018, n°17-28.951) and the ECJ in Assens Havn v. Navigator Management UK Ltd (13 July 2017, C-368/16) and KABEG v. MMA IARD (20 July 2017, C-340/16).

                The case submitted to the Cour de cassation represented a third party exercising a direct right of action before French Courts against the insurer of a floating barge which had caused him a damage. The Supreme Court accepted that the insurer could validly oppose the arbitration clause, which was in the policy against the third party, and therefore judged that French Court had no jurisdiction to decide on the case. The Supreme Court applied the well-established principle of Compétence-Compétence – materialized in article 1448 of the French Code de Procédure Civile – to stay the case, considering that the arbitration clause could not be set aside. The Court therefore judged that the applicability of the arbitration clause should be determined by the arbitrators by priority.

                A year before, the ECJ had ruled in the opposite direction in a case where a jurisdiction clause was applicable in the insurance policy. In Assens Havn v. Navigator Management UK Ltd, the ECJ stated that the clause could not be opposed to the third party acting directly against the insurer. According to the Court, the insurers’ liability towards the insured has a contractual nature when based on the policy, whereas it is extra-contractual when the liability is based on a direct action from a third party. In a previous ruling the Court had considered (Sté financière et industrielle du Peloux (12 May 2005, C-112/03) that the jurisdiction clause cannot be opposed to the beneficiary of an insurance policy if he is not the policyholder (for instance in a collective insurance).

                One sees a clear difference in treatment between arbitration clause and jurisdiction clause when it comes to deciding on their opposability to the victim exercising a direct action against the insurer.

                Article 2061 paragraph 2 of the Civil Code states that an arbitration cannot be opposed to a party which has not contracted for the purpose of its business activity. The French Cour de cassation grounded its decision on the fact that the clauses of the main contract could be opposed to the third party. If the latter was entitled to apply the insurance contract, it was therefore entitled to invoke article 2061 paragraph 2 of the Civil Code.

                On 29 March 2019 new amendments to the federal law “On arbitration in the Russian Federation” entered into force. This law regulates the order of establishment and activities of arbitration courts and permanently acting arbitration institutions (PAAI) in Russia and applies to resolution of both international and local disputes by arbitration in Russia.

                The key amendments relate to granting of rights to foreign arbitration centers to perform functions of PAAIs in Russia. Earlier such rights were granted by the government, but as from 29 March 2019 such functions were transferred to the Ministry of Justice. Ministry of Justice grants the rights to perform functions of PAAIs in Russia to foreign arbitration centers based on recommendations received from the Council on improvement of arbitrations.

                As of 31 March 2019, there are only 4 (four) PAAIs authorized to administer disputes by arbitration in Russia and all of them are Russian organizations. In accordance with the latest news the Hong Kong International Arbitration Center (HKIAC) is the first international arbitration center that has recently received a recommendation from the Council on improvement of arbitrations to establish PAAI in Russia and has been approved by the Ministry of Justice to establish PAAI in Russia. In accordance with the law an arbitration center is included in the list of PAAIs in Russia within 15 days from the date of approval by the Council, i.e. by the end of April 2019 HKIAC could become the first international arbitration center authorized to administer international disputes in Russia.

                Another issue that should be carefully considered by choosing an arbitration center relate to resolution of disputes between companies established in Russia (local disputes) by international arbitration centers not included in the list of PAAIs in Russia and not authorized to consider local disputes in Russia.

                Though there is no direct prohibition established by the Russian law to settle disputes between Russian companies by foreign arbitration centers with the seat of arbitration outside of Russia, the possibility of referral of local disputes to foreign arbitration centers is still questionable. In one of the court decisions that caused disputes in legal community (case# А40-219464/16-52-430) the Russian court of first instance ruled that resolution of local disputes by the foreign arbitration institutions violates public policy in Russia. Notwithstanding the fact that such ruling was dismissed by the higher court instance the risk that the Russian courts might deny recognition of awards of foreign arbitration institutions not included in the list of PAAIs in Russia and not authorized to consider local disputes in Russia cannot be excluded.

                Therefore, in situations when the disputes arise between companies established in Russia it would be reasonable to choose arbitration institution included in the list of PAAIs in Russia and authorized to administer local disputes in Russia or, alternatively, agree on resolution of disputes by the Russian commercial courts.

                Takeaways

                • if you agree in international contracts that the seat of arbitration is in Russia, it would be reasonable to choose the arbitration center included in the list of PAAIs in Russia and authorized to resolve international disputes in Russia.
                • If you agree in local contracts to resolve disputes by arbitration, it would be reasonable to choose the arbitration center included in the list of PAAIs in Russia and authorized to resolve local disputes in Russia.

                Alexander Katzendorn

                Áreas de práctica

                • Arbitraje
                • Derecho Societario
                • Comercio internacional
                • Derecho Internacional Privado
                • Derecho Fiscal y Tributario
                Contáctanos Alexander

                Contacta con Alexander





                  Lea la política de privacidad de Legalmondo.
                  Este sitio está protegido por reCAPTCHA y se aplican la Política de privacidad de Google y los Términos de servicio.

                  Arbitration in distribution contracts – The « IDArb »

                  20 de noviembre de 2018

                  • España
                  • Arbitraje
                  • Contratos de distribución

                  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.

                  Summary: Companies with international projection and global presence can count on mediation and its benefits in the different contexts of their business, both in the compliance of the code of conduct and internal rules as well as in the compliance of contracts and projects with third parties or public authorities. In the same way, it facilitates access to a saturated justice system, while at the same time improving the relationship between the parties, as they do not have to face the wear and tear of the judicial phase, which leads to emotional wear and tear.

                  I will focus on the intersection between compliance and mediation, as international corporations are increasingly interested in the potential of Mediation applied to compliance frameworks. Although there are a few important challenges that we need to mention, the benefits of international mediation are clear: costs savings, quick solutions and a good understanding between the parties. International mediation and compliance go hand in hand and, although they may not seem to have much in common, they complement each other. The purpose of this article is to illustrate with some practical examples the advantages of compliance mediation for small and medium-sized enterprises operating internationally, in order to demonstrate the potential that exists in this combination.

                  Mediation is a form of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) that involves the intervention of a neutral third party, known as the mediator, to help disputing parties reach a mutually acceptable agreement. Unlike litigation, which involves a judge making a binding decision, mediation allows the parties to control the outcome, facilitating a more collaborative and flexible approach to resolving disputes.

                  In the context of compliance issues and international contracts, mediation offers a unique advantage by addressing both legal and non-legal aspects of disputes, such as cultural differences, business practices, and organizational relationships. This flexibility is particularly important when dealing with international contracts, where cross-cultural understanding and respect for diverse legal systems are essential.

                  The key is still the same recipe as the initial negotiation of a contract. The parties objectively and in a neutral atmosphere and collaborative approach, find ‘solutions’ to their disagreements where both parties win. The so-called win-win is still the best scenario in which the parties should meet again in dispute resolution. I always insist on the word ‘reconnect’ because of its positive connotation in any relationship. Mediation allows the parties to negotiate a mutually acceptable outcome, preserving the relationship between them, with the additional value of cost and time efficiencies and confidentiality guaranteed throughout the process.

                  Mediation benefits compliance programmes in two keyways.

                  Resolving internal compliance issues

                  This is accomplished through facilitating communication and conflict resolution among employees, promoting a culture of dialogue, transparency and accountability. When a company uses mediation to resolve conflicts arising from internal compliance-related situations, it helps to prevent a conflict from escalating in proportions both in the form of legal action and disputes that may involve the public administration.

                  A clear example is conflicts related to the code of conduct, where disputes often arise at the HR level. Another example is that arising from conflicts of interest. In both cases the connection lies in the common goal of promoting ethical behaviour, improving communication and resolving conflicts in a way that helps the employee and the company to follow its internal rules and achieve the required standards.

                  Mediation opens a space for dialogue and amicable conflict resolution, facilitating employees’ professional and personal growth in a sustained way over time.

                  Another example can be conflicts related to cross-border labour issues applicable to the same company, whether private, non-governmental organisation or conflicts between private and public companies. The reasons for the conflict may be related to harassment issues or pay inequality issues. For example, the internal pay system within an international organisation should consider the following elements:

                  • Remuneration represents by far the most important and controversial element of the employment relationship and is of equal interest to the employer and the employee.
                  • The remuneration system should be based on and consistent with the principles of the organisation.
                  • The criteria for determining remuneration should be objective and measurable.
                  • The system should be equitable.

                  Conflicts often arise around these elements and companies should be transparent, through comprehensive policies, about their position on non-discrimination, harassment or inclusion of their employees within their organisation and the markets in which they operate.

                  Mediation can be a channel to help find solutions to equality and non-discrimination issues between employees within the same organisation. It also obliges companies to consider the standards of international legislation (e.g. CSRD) when implementing their policies. We are seeing that it is not a ‘nice to have’ but a ‘must have’.

                  Resolving disputes with external parties

                  Mediation can be used to enforce commercial contracts or in projects. It helps prevent disputes between companies or between companies and regulators, foster better relations, and ensure compliance standards are met without resorting to litigation. Mediation promotes cooperation between the parties and helps reduce the risk of future contractual violations.

                  A clear example of the benefits of the use of mediation in compliance arises in the international context where legal certainty is required for both parties, as well as fair and reasonable management of a long-term project. In some cases, there is a public-private element to the dispute as the public sector is involved (either in licensing issues or as a regulatory authority). This may create some confusion in the roles and rights of the parties, which makes perfect sense when the interests of the investor (private equity) and the community or private parties are very diverse.

                  For context, we might think of environmental, social and governance issues that are receiving serious attention from governments and regulators, given the impact on the planet and the people within the communities where they live. Mediation offers a way to resolve these conflicts by facilitating open communication between the parties involved. For instance, if a company is accused of breaching a country’s environmental regulations, mediation can provide a platform for the company and regulatory authorities to discuss the issues, share concerns, and negotiate a solution that satisfies both parties. Instead of pursuing punitive measures or resorting to lengthy legal battles, mediation can help parties find common ground and craft a solution that supports compliance while preserving business relationships.

                  A concrete example is mining activities, which contribute greatly to the involvement of foreign entities in resource-rich countries, involving, on a large scale, both foreign and domestic interests, and potentially resulting in pollution and damage to the environment. In addition, there are various problems, especially the use of land for mining activities, which causes friction between mining companies, communities and local governments where mining activities take place. Since these projects take place over a long period of time and involve various interests of both private and public actors as well as communities, mediation is undoubtedly a good way to prevent disputes during the whole process of project development and implementation, offering in conflict situations not only a quick solution for both parties but also a fair and reasonable management of a project in the long term.

                  Another tool, with elements of mediation, which is recommended for the successful completion of large projects, as for instance construction projects, are Dispute Boards, a panel of one to three members with extensive experience in the field of the contract, who accompany the execution of the contract until the work is completed on time and on budget. This method is not a pure and simple mediation, although it resembles it, because the Dispute Boards, in particular the so-called DAAB (Dispute Avoidance and Adjudication Board), permanently seek to avoid conflict and, if it arises, to encourage the parties to find a solution or to make it binding. I will go into more detail on this subject in another article.

                  Hereby, we can also mention internal control and auditability towards third parties, be they customers or suppliers. The EU directive (CSDDD) puts the emphasis on indirect suppliers in the supply chain. It is therefore important that when establishing a business or investment partnership, all parties involved have a similar level of compliance with standards. In this regard, framework compliance agreements, which are compliance agreements that regulate the compliance obligations of both parties’ subject to a service contract, are very common.

                  Aspects of compliance in such contracts may include, among others, anti-corruption policy, fee evasion, international sanctions, trainings, reporting requirements and ways to audit the compliance clauses agreed in the service contract, as well as the escalation clause to resolve disputes amicably, using the various existing ADR modes.

                  In the context of commercial contracts, mediation is used to resolve disputes related to non-performance, late deliveries, payment problems, interpretations of clauses or any other dispute arising from a commercial agreement, including any aspect of the compliance agreement as referred to above.

                  For an internationally developing company it would be advisable to promote mediation as the type of dispute resolution in conflicts with third parties. One way to promote mediation as an effective means of dispute resolution could be through a clause of voluntary submission to mediation in all transactions with third parties, followed by arbitration or submission to the courts of a certain jurisdiction, known as a tiered dispute resolution clause. These clauses provide for a gradual system of dispute resolution following various alternative methods of resolving disputes, usually culminating in arbitration if the outcome of the first alternative methods is unsuccessful.

                  The choice of conflict resolution through mediation is a ‘win-win solution’, whose confidentiality is guaranteed in the face of public attention. Based on these advantages, mediation is considered more suitable to be implemented (agreed, including with the escalation clause) in a contract.

                  Challenges of Mediation in International Contract Disputes

                  Despite its many advantages, mediation is not without its challenges. Some of the key obstacles include:

                  Lack of Enforcement Mechanisms: Mediation agreements are typically non-binding, meaning that parties are not legally required to adhere to the terms of the settlement. While mediation can result in a mutually agreed-upon solution, enforcing the agreement may require the parties to enter into further negotiations or even resort to litigation if one side fails to honour the agreement.

                  Cultural and Language Barriers: In international contract disputes, cultural differences and language barriers can complicate the mediation process. It is important to select mediators who have experience with cross-cultural communication and who understand the legal systems involved. Without such expertise, the mediation process may be ineffective.

                  Reluctance to Mediate: Some parties may be reluctant to mediate, especially if they perceive it as a sign of weakness or if they are unfamiliar with the process. This reluctance can be overcome with proper education and a clear understanding of the benefits of mediation.

                  Although we can say that there is a growth of mediation around the world and the level of satisfaction of the use of mediation is based on its core values, which are impartiality, confidentiality and self-determination, the promotion of the mediation is still an important challenge.

                  Conclusion

                  In the case of internal compliance, mediation usually takes a more reactive role, i.e. when the conflict has already surfaced within the company or organisation; whereas, in the case of third party compliance, mediation takes a preventive role, such as in the case of Dispute Boards, although it also helps to resolve a commercial conflict between parties who wish to continue to maintain a business relationship. In both cases the objective is the same, to try to find common ground between the interests of the parties in order to resolve or avoid a conflict that could lead the parties to a legal dispute.

                  As international trade continues to grow and the complexity of global regulations increases, businesses and organizations can benefit from adopting mediation as a strategic method for resolving conflicts. By fostering cooperation and understanding, mediation can help build stronger, more resilient business relationships and ensure long-term success in a global marketplace.

                  Companies need to adhere to their own compliance programmes, but also to the programme of their customers, suppliers or banks with whom they collaborate. Not only is there a need for expertise to know the legal framework applicable to the industry, but there is also a need for conflict resolution when conflicts arise or even to act pre-emptively. Legal battles are expensive, time-consuming and damaging to business relationships. Many jurisdictions and industries are already demanding an obligation for parties to exhaust alternative dispute resolution methods before moving to the litigation phase.

                  El arbitraje es un procedimiento para resolver los conflictos entre las partes que tiene gran éxito en el sistema legal anglosajón. Y bastante menos en nuestro país.

                  Tiene ventajas e inconvenientes; es más caro que los Tribunales, pero es mucho más rápido; y la velocidad es esencial para que la justicia sea tal.

                  Típicamente un arbitraje dura seis meses más un par de ellos para el nombramiento del árbitro; en total, en 8 meses puede estar definitivamente resuelto un conflicto, por importante y difícil que pueda ser.

                  Por comparar con los Tribunales, en España hoy debemos contar con unos 18 meses de media para tener sentencia en primera instancia y otro tanto para el recurso de apelación; sin contar con posible recurso ante el Tribunal Supremo.

                  La piedra angular sobre la que descansa el arbitraje es que el laudo del árbitro es final y definitivo y no admite revisión ni recurso; esta afirmación tiene determinadas excepciones fundamentalmente de carácter formal o procedimental: básicamente, la legalidad del convenio arbitral, la arbitrabilidad de la materia y la regularidad procedimental en el desarrollo del procedimiento arbitral. Estos vicios o defectos pueden ser atacados a través de un recurso de anulación del que si entiende la jurisdicción ordinaria.

                  Pero además de los posibles defectos “formales”, la acción de anulación del laudo puede apoyarse en la denuncia de una infracción del “orden público” que el Tribunal Constitucional ha definido y perfilado como “aquellos principios jurídicos públicos y privados, políticos, morales y económicos que son absolutamente obligatorios para la conservación de la sociedad en un pueblo y en una época determinada”.

                  Como esta definición de “orden público” es, indudablemente, amplia e inconcreta, el recurso a la vulneración del orden público como herramienta para declarar la nulidad de los laudos por la jurisdicción ordinaria, ha producido un efecto de “desbordamiento” que ha exigido, en palabras del Tribunal Constitucional “llevar a cabo una interpretación restrictiva del misma so pena de vulnerar la autonomía de la voluntad de las partes y su renuncia a la tutela jurisdiccional”.

                  Así lo ha proclamado dicho Tribunal en la muy importante sentencia de 15 de febrero pasado que motiva esta nota.

                  En estos últimos años el Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Madrid ha recurrido al argumento del “orden público” de manera extensiva y “desbordada” para anular laudos y “suplir al tribunal arbitral en su función de aplicar el derecho”, convirtiéndose en “una segunda instancia revisora de los hechos y derechos aplicados en el laudo, un mecanismo de control de la correcta aplicación de la jurisprudencia”.

                  Y esta interpretación del orden público expansiva y “desbordada” como herramienta para anular laudos por parte del TSJM se había convertido en un grave problema para la institución arbitral y para la confianza de los contratantes a la hora de incluir convenios arbitrales en sus contratos; el principio de que el laudo era la solución definitiva y final al conflicto que pretende resolver, salvo por infracciones procedimentales o infracción del orden publico limitado a aquellos casos en los que el laudo fuera arbitrario, ilógico, absurdo o irracional, quedaba en entredicho y suponía un elemento claramente disuasorio a la hora de que los contratantes decidieran resolver sus discrepancias por medio de arbitraje.

                  Pues bien, el Tribunal Constitucional de manera rotunda y explicita, repitiendo lo que ya adelantó en su sentencia de junio del año pasado, confirma que la necesidad de que el laudo no contravenga el orden público, no puede traer como consecuencia que el órgano judicial supla al árbitro en su función de aplicación del derecho, ni puede convertirse en una segunda instancia revisora de los hechos y de los fundamentos de derecho aplicados en el laudo ni un mecanismo de control de la correcta aplicación de la jurisprudencia.

                  Prima el principio de la autonomía de la voluntad de las partes; y ello significa que cuando existe sometimiento a arbitraje, las partes han convenido que debe ser a través de ese cauce como han de resolverse las controversias entre ellas, mediante la decisión del arbitro que solo  podrá ser anulada a través de los estrictos cauces que la propia Ley de Arbitraje regula; insistimos, por razones procedimentales o por vulnerar el orden público en la interpretación restringida que explica la sentencia que comentamos; pero en ningún caso, a modo de una segunda instancia donde se re -evalúen de nuevo los hechos y los fundamentos de derecho aplicados.

                  En suma, el arbitraje español está de enhorabuena, y podrá recuperar el impulso que le hizo perder, en parte, la interpretación extensiva del orden público que defendían algunos Tribunales Superiores de Justicia. A partir de ahora los Tribunales no podrán soslayar la interpretación del Tribunal Constitucional que supone un soplo de aire fresco para el arbitraje español.

                  In an important and very reasoned judgment delivered by the Court of Cassation of France on September 30, 2020, relating to the enforceability of arbitration clauses in international consumer contracts, the Supreme Court judged that these clauses must be considered unfair and cannot be opposed to consumers.  

                  The Supreme Court traditionally insisted on the priority given to the arbitrator to decide on his own jurisdiction, laid down in Article 1448 of the Code of Civil Procedure (principle known as «competence-competence», Jaguar, Civ. 1re, May 21, 1997, nos. 95-11.429 and 95-11.427). 

                  The ECJ expressed its hostility towards such clauses when they are opposed to consumers. In Mostaza Claro (C-168/05), it referred to the internal laws of member states, while considering that the procedural modalities offered by states should not “make it impossible in practice or excessively difficult to exercise the rights conferred by public order to consumers (“Directive 93/13, concerning unfair terms in consumer contracts, must be interpreted as meaning that a national court seized of an action for annulment of an arbitration award must determine whether the arbitration agreement is void and annul that award where that agreement contains an unfair term, even though the consumer has not pleaded that invalidity in the course of the arbitration proceedings, but only in that of the action for annulment”).  

                  It therefore referred to the national judge the right to implement its legislation on unfair terms, and therefore to decide, on a case-by-case basis, whether the arbitration clause should be considered unfair. This is what the Court of Cassation decided, ruling out the case-by-case method, and considering that in any event such a clause must be excluded in relations with consumers.  

                  The Court of Cassation adopted the same solution in international employment contracts, where it traditionally considers that arbitration clauses contained in international employment contracts are enforceable against employee (Soc. 16 Feb. 1999, n ° 96-40.643). 

                  The Supreme Court, although traditionally very favourable to arbitration, gradually builds up a set of specific exceptions to ensure the protection of the «weak» party.

                  Unfair commercial behaviours between professionals are sanctioned in Sections L442-1 and seq. of the French Commercial Code. French Courts tend to consider that those dispositions of the Commercial Code are mandatory, in particular Section L442-1, II of the Code on abrupt termination of commercial relationships. Based on this section, an operator can be held liable if he terminates a commercial relationship without respecting a prior notice which duration depends on the duration of the relationship.

                  Although this is considered to be a mandatory law, the French Supreme Court considers that it does not preclude to bring a dispute before foreign Courts in compliance with a jurisdiction clause (Civ.1, 8 July 2010, Doga, n°09-67013). Moreover, Courts have ruled for a long time now that arbitrators are entitled to apply national mandatory laws (Court of Appeal of Paris, 19 March 1993, Labinal, n°9221091). In the case Doga above quoted, the Court concluded that arbitrators are also entitled to apply Sections 442-1, II of the Commercial Code related to the conditions of termination of commercial relationship. Therefore, if a contract contains an arbitration clause, the judge is obliged to give priority to the arbitrators to decide on their own jurisdiction to decide on the case (principle « compétence-compétence ») in conformity with Section 1465 of the French Procedural Code. This solution was confirmed in a recent decision rendered on 5 September 2019 by the Court of Appeal of Paris in  Charlivari v. Sté Equivalanza, n°17/03703.

                  It is noteworthy to underline that two sets of sanctions are considered under Sections 442-1 and seq. of the Commercial Code: the first sanction allows the victim of unfair practice to seek damages (for instance for abrupt termination of commercial relationship) against the author of unfair practices;  the second sanction is decided by the public administration, under the authority of the Ministry of Economics : the Ministry is entitled to bring the case to Courts, which can then decide to fine the party who is liable of unfair practices (the fine can be up to 5% of the turnover made in France by the person liable or 5 Million EUR).

                  Therefore, one single matter can give rise to two procedures at the same time, the first one initiated by the victim and the second one at the request of the Ministry of Economics (Section L442-4 of the Code). In a case Apple v. Ministre de l’Economie, the Supreme Court (Civ.1, 6 juillet 2016, n° 15-21811) considered that the action of the Ministry of Economics cannot be decided by arbitrators, even if the contract contains an arbitration clause, because of the specificity of this action, which is not based on the contract by itself but on powers that the Ministry draws from the law.

                  Therefore, a clear distinction must be made between the two procedures: one is subject to the application of the dispute resolution clause (either national Courts, even foreign, or arbitration tribunals), when damages are sought from the author of unfair practices, including abrupt termination; the other one can be brought only before French national Courts, and the dispute resolution clause has no effect, in cases which are brought by the Ministry of Economics for administrative sanctions against the same author.

                  El procedimiento arbitral en España se caracteriza, y constituye una de sus grandes ventajas, por la dificultad de anular o revocar judicialmente el laudo; las partes saben que el laudo que se dicte es en la mayoría de los casos firme y definitivo y pone punto final al conflicto.

                  El art. 41 de la Ley de Arbitraje únicamente permite la anulación del laudo por razones de forma (inexistencia o invalidez del convenio arbitral, falta de notificación a alguna de las partes sobre la designación del árbitro o de las actuaciones arbitrales, indebida designación de los árbitros o que los árbitros hayan resuelto sobre materias que no eran o no podían ser objeto de arbitraje por imperio de la ley). Y adicionalmente el laudo también es anulable cuando es contrario al “orden público”.

                  Que cosa sea el “orden público” como para dar lugar, en caso de vulneración, a la anulación del laudo, es cuestión que de siempre ha sido controvertida y debatida; ya en la Convención de Nueva York de 1958 se alude el “orden público” como causa de denegación del reconocimiento de laudos extranjeros. Como recuerda el Tribunal Constitucional (“TC”) en la sentencia que comentamos, citando su propia jurisprudencia, “el orden público material es el conjunto de principios jurídicos públicos y privados, políticos, morales y económicos que son absolutamente obligatorios para la conservación de la sociedad en un pueblo y en una época determinada y el orden público procesal se configura como el conjunto de formalidades y principios necesarios de nuestro ordenamiento jurídico procesal y solo el arbitraje que contradiga alguno o algunos de tales principios podrá ser tachado de nulo por vulneración del orden público”.

                  A título de ejemplo, durante 2018 se presentaron 38 demandas de anulación de laudos ante los Tribunales Superiores de Justicia (“TSJ”) de los que 31 se fundamentaban en vulneración del orden público; resultaron estimadas 8 de las demandas (21%), 5 por vulneración del orden público y 3 por invalidez del convenio arbitral.

                  El TSJ de Madrid ha venido manteniendo en los últimos tiempos una interpretación muy “expansiva” del orden público, lo que ha generado dudas y temores en las instituciones y Cortes Arbitrales, por el efecto disuasorio que dicha posición podría tener a la hora de elegir Madrid como sede de arbitrajes, nacionales o internacionales.

                  Y en la línea interpretativa a la que nos referimos, el TSJ de Madrid ha mantenido el siguiente y sorprendente criterio: dictado un laudo e interpuesta demanda de anulación por una de las partes, los litigantes alcanzaron un acuerdo extrajudicial y solicitaron conjuntamente  el archivo de la demanda de anulación; es decir, ambos daban el laudo por bueno y definitivo; el TSJ rechazó la petición y siguió adelante hasta dictar sentencia anulando el laudo, argumentando que como la demanda de anulación se basaba en la infracción del orden público, entonces ya la materia no era disponible por las partes y no era, en opinión del Tribunal, susceptible de transacción o renuncia.

                  No era esta la primera vez que el TSJ adoptaba esta postura: impetrada la anulación de un laudo por ser contrario al “orden público”, las partes ya no tenían la posibilidad de transar y renunciar a la demanda de anulación.

                  Por primera vez el asunto ha llegado al Tribunal Constitucional (TC): en un reciente fallo del 15 de junio de 2020, el TC ha sido claro y rotundo; recuerda en su sentencia que el proceso civil se fundamenta en el principio de “disposición de las partes para regular sus intereses privados, es decir, para iniciar la actividad jurisdiccional, determinar el objeto del proceso y ponerle fin cuando estimen conveniente”. Es lo que llamamos “justicia rogada”; y este principio aplica no solo a los procedimientos civiles ante los tribunales ordinarios sino también a los procedimientos arbitrales; asimismo afirma la sentencia que el arbitraje está configurado por la Ley como un mecanismo heterónomo de resolución de conflictos al que es consustancial la mínima intervención de los órganos judiciales a favor de la autonomía de la voluntad.

                  Y concluye sentando que la acción de anulación debe ser entendida como un proceso de control externo sobre el laudo que no permite una decisión sobre el fondo de la decisión de los árbitros, al estar tasadas las causas, lo que justifica que “el control de los laudos tenga carácter limitado y solo pueda obtenerse la anulación del laudo en casos excepcionales”.

                  En suma, entiende y proclama el TC que es contrario al derecho a la tutela judicial efectiva que protege el art. 24 de la Constitución la negativa del Tribunal a reconocer la virtualidad de un acuerdo alcanzado entre los litigantes con fundamento en el poder dispositivo de las partes sin que medie norma prohibitiva que así lo autorice e imponiendo una decisión que subvierte el principio dispositivo o de “justicia rogada” que inspira el proceso civil; por lo que concede el amparo solicitado y ordena retrotraer las actuaciones al momento anterior al auto que denegó virtualidad a la solicitud conjunta de archivo para que el TSJ dicte otra resolución acompasada al criterio del TC.

                  En suma, no podrá ya nunca más el TSJM impedir a los litigantes transar y poner fin a una demanda de anulación de laudo (como ocurre pacífica y habitualmente con los recursos de apelación o de casación) y además deberá tomar en consideración en adelante la interpretación restrictiva del concepto de orden público que ha establecido el TC en esta importante sentencia. En efecto, el arbitraje español sale muy reforzado con esta sentencia del TC.

                  Are arbitration and jurisdiction clauses contained in insurance contracts enforceable against a third party which is acting directly against the insurer in third party liability insurances?

                  Such direct action is admitted by French law in liability insurances, as defined in article 124-3 of the Insurance Code.

                  In just a few months two radically different approaches have been taken by the French Cour de cassation (Civ.1, 19 December 2018, n°17-28.951) and the ECJ in Assens Havn v. Navigator Management UK Ltd (13 July 2017, C-368/16) and KABEG v. MMA IARD (20 July 2017, C-340/16).

                  The case submitted to the Cour de cassation represented a third party exercising a direct right of action before French Courts against the insurer of a floating barge which had caused him a damage. The Supreme Court accepted that the insurer could validly oppose the arbitration clause, which was in the policy against the third party, and therefore judged that French Court had no jurisdiction to decide on the case. The Supreme Court applied the well-established principle of Compétence-Compétence – materialized in article 1448 of the French Code de Procédure Civile – to stay the case, considering that the arbitration clause could not be set aside. The Court therefore judged that the applicability of the arbitration clause should be determined by the arbitrators by priority.

                  A year before, the ECJ had ruled in the opposite direction in a case where a jurisdiction clause was applicable in the insurance policy. In Assens Havn v. Navigator Management UK Ltd, the ECJ stated that the clause could not be opposed to the third party acting directly against the insurer. According to the Court, the insurers’ liability towards the insured has a contractual nature when based on the policy, whereas it is extra-contractual when the liability is based on a direct action from a third party. In a previous ruling the Court had considered (Sté financière et industrielle du Peloux (12 May 2005, C-112/03) that the jurisdiction clause cannot be opposed to the beneficiary of an insurance policy if he is not the policyholder (for instance in a collective insurance).

                  One sees a clear difference in treatment between arbitration clause and jurisdiction clause when it comes to deciding on their opposability to the victim exercising a direct action against the insurer.

                  Article 2061 paragraph 2 of the Civil Code states that an arbitration cannot be opposed to a party which has not contracted for the purpose of its business activity. The French Cour de cassation grounded its decision on the fact that the clauses of the main contract could be opposed to the third party. If the latter was entitled to apply the insurance contract, it was therefore entitled to invoke article 2061 paragraph 2 of the Civil Code.

                  On 29 March 2019 new amendments to the federal law “On arbitration in the Russian Federation” entered into force. This law regulates the order of establishment and activities of arbitration courts and permanently acting arbitration institutions (PAAI) in Russia and applies to resolution of both international and local disputes by arbitration in Russia.

                  The key amendments relate to granting of rights to foreign arbitration centers to perform functions of PAAIs in Russia. Earlier such rights were granted by the government, but as from 29 March 2019 such functions were transferred to the Ministry of Justice. Ministry of Justice grants the rights to perform functions of PAAIs in Russia to foreign arbitration centers based on recommendations received from the Council on improvement of arbitrations.

                  As of 31 March 2019, there are only 4 (four) PAAIs authorized to administer disputes by arbitration in Russia and all of them are Russian organizations. In accordance with the latest news the Hong Kong International Arbitration Center (HKIAC) is the first international arbitration center that has recently received a recommendation from the Council on improvement of arbitrations to establish PAAI in Russia and has been approved by the Ministry of Justice to establish PAAI in Russia. In accordance with the law an arbitration center is included in the list of PAAIs in Russia within 15 days from the date of approval by the Council, i.e. by the end of April 2019 HKIAC could become the first international arbitration center authorized to administer international disputes in Russia.

                  Another issue that should be carefully considered by choosing an arbitration center relate to resolution of disputes between companies established in Russia (local disputes) by international arbitration centers not included in the list of PAAIs in Russia and not authorized to consider local disputes in Russia.

                  Though there is no direct prohibition established by the Russian law to settle disputes between Russian companies by foreign arbitration centers with the seat of arbitration outside of Russia, the possibility of referral of local disputes to foreign arbitration centers is still questionable. In one of the court decisions that caused disputes in legal community (case# А40-219464/16-52-430) the Russian court of first instance ruled that resolution of local disputes by the foreign arbitration institutions violates public policy in Russia. Notwithstanding the fact that such ruling was dismissed by the higher court instance the risk that the Russian courts might deny recognition of awards of foreign arbitration institutions not included in the list of PAAIs in Russia and not authorized to consider local disputes in Russia cannot be excluded.

                  Therefore, in situations when the disputes arise between companies established in Russia it would be reasonable to choose arbitration institution included in the list of PAAIs in Russia and authorized to administer local disputes in Russia or, alternatively, agree on resolution of disputes by the Russian commercial courts.

                  Takeaways

                  • if you agree in international contracts that the seat of arbitration is in Russia, it would be reasonable to choose the arbitration center included in the list of PAAIs in Russia and authorized to resolve international disputes in Russia.
                  • If you agree in local contracts to resolve disputes by arbitration, it would be reasonable to choose the arbitration center included in the list of PAAIs in Russia and authorized to resolve local disputes in Russia.

                  Ignacio Alonso

                  Áreas de práctica

                  • Agencia
                  • Derecho Societario
                  • Contratos de distribución
                  • Franquicia
                  Contáctanos Ignacio

                  Contacta con Ignacio





                    Lea la política de privacidad de Legalmondo.
                    Este sitio está protegido por reCAPTCHA y se aplican la Política de privacidad de Google y los Términos de servicio.