A year ago, the future of the reform of French arbitration law – announced in spring 2025 – remained uncertain. We then summed up this momentum with a phrase: that of a “promise still pending.”
Anticipation has given way to action with the official launch of the reform’s first phase. Decree No. 2026-741 of 6 August 2026, which introduces « various measures clarifying and modernising arbitral procedure, » was published in the Journal Officiel (the official gazette of the French Republic) on 7 August 2026.
By way of reminder, 15 years ago now, the decree of 13 January 2011 profoundly modernised French Arbitration Law, enshrining the autonomy of the arbitration agreement, the so-called principle of “competence-competence”, and an approach favourable to the international effectiveness of awards.
The preparatory work carried out in 2024 and 2025 subsequently revived the idea of a still more ambitious evolution.
The roadmap initially set out by the Minister of Justice was structured around several major stages:
- As of April 2025: Launch of a broad consultation phase around the 40 proposals put forward by the working group chaired by François Ancel and Thomas Clay, with a view to reaching a consensus.
- Act 1 (autumn 2025): Rapid adoption of a decree aimed at incorporating into the Code of Civil Procedure the most consensual proposals arising from the report.
- Act 2 (spring 2026): Publication of a second decree concerning the less consensual measures, following a consultation phase.
- Final Act (2026, as a standalone instrument): Final adoption by the legislature of the new French Arbitration Code.
At this stage, no document enables us to confirm the progress of any potential second decree or that of the draft Arbitration Code referred to in the report of the aforementioned working group; based on our sources, neither of these two projects has yet received any known official implementation and they should therefore be followed closely rather than presented as either adopted or abandoned.
It must be acknowledged that, although the timetable has been delayed and the creation of a standalone Arbitration Code has been set aside at this stage in favour of targeted amendments to the French Code of Civil Procedure, the text published on 6 August does give concrete effect to the stated ambition of clarification and modernisation.
Scheduled to enter into force on 1 January 2027, this first phase of the reform transposes into the Frech Code of Civil Procedure what were intended to be the most widely supported proposals arising from the above-mentioned report. The question remains as to what will concretely change in practice, it being specified that this article will focus exclusively on the contributions of this text to international arbitration.
I. Major contributions of the decree of 6 August 2026 to international arbitration
A. Redefining the criteria for international arbitration (Article 1504 of the French Code of Civil Procedure)
Among the flagship measures described as “modernisation” of international arbitration law is undoubtedly the one introduced in Article 1504 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which concerns the very definition of international arbitration.
As of 1 January 2027, arbitration will be considered international where it involves “international economic interests”, a formula that replaces the historic concept of “international trade interests”.
At first sight, this new wording appears more contemporary and inclusive – an evolution that was moreover rather strongly supported by the French Arbitration Committee (Comité Français de l’Arbitrage — CFA) in its work on the reform, which viewed it as a welcome modernisation. Indeed, it clearly encompasses transactions that fall outside traditional commercial scope, such as investment disputes or those on the boundary between general civil law and property or financial law.
But what is its actual practical significance beyond the semantic change? For many years, French case law had already adopted a particularly flexible and extensive understanding of “international trade”, defining it pragmatically as any transfer of existing or new flows (of goods, services or money) across borders.
More specifically, the recurring criterion adopted by the settled case law of the Paris Court of Appeal (in particular its International Commercial Chamber (CCIP), which has exclusive jurisdiction over actions to set aside international awards) is that arbitration is international where it concerns “a transaction which does not resolve itself economically within a single State”, irrespective of the nationality of the parties or the applicable law (for example, Paris Court of Appeal, Pole 5 – Chamber 16, Order of 10 July 2025, RG No. 24/16717).
Accordingly, this drafting adjustment looks more like a formal enshrinement of the existing state of the law than a genuine procedural revolution. Nevertheless, it will be necessary to remain attentive to how this criterion is interpreted in future case law.
B. Conduct of the proceedings and powers of the arbitrator (Articles 1462-1, 1464, 1468-1 and 1506 of the French Code of Civil Procedure)
As regards the conduct of the proceedings, new Article 1462-1 of the Code of Civil Procedure enshrines so-called “multi-contract” arbitral proceedings: it now makes it possible to bring before a single arbitral tribunal, claims arising from separate contracts, provided that the arbitration rules so provide or, failing that, that all the parties consent.
This new provision implements Proposal No. 25 of the report of the working group chaired by François Ancel and Thomas Clay. The version ultimately adopted is, however, more restrained than the initial draft, which drew in particular on institutional rules (especially Articles 9 and 10 of the ICC Rules). New Article 1462-1 of the Code of Civil Procedure expressly preserves the parties’ right to object. The objective is clear: to prevent an isolated arbitration from being unwillingly absorbed into a broader proceeding.
Another recommendation of the report, namely the enshrinement of guiding principles specific to French arbitration law, was not adopted in its entirety. The decree nevertheless extracted one central element from it: the duty of proportionality and good faith, now expressly imposed on arbitrators in the conduct of the proceedings.
This requirement will be inserted into Article 1464 of the Code of Civil Procedure -already devoted to the transposition of the guiding principles of litigation into arbitration. The text will indeed specify that the parties and arbitrators are required to “endeavour to adapt the proceedings to the complexity and significance of the dispute”.
According to the government circular presenting the decree of 6 August 2026, “This amendment, which reflects a desire to implement a principle of procedural proportionality in arbitration, is intended to encourage the arbitral tribunal and the parties to rationalise the proceedings (i.e. the number of arbitrators, the number of hearings and the duration of the proceedings), without, however, hindering the arbitrator’s freedom to regulate the arbitral proceedings.” (author’s translation)
Promoting procedural restraint is a noble goal, though a somewhat amusing one given the colossal stakes and heavy artillery standard in major international arbitrations. Whether old habits will actually change remains to be seen.
Finally, one last new development deserves attention: it will now be possible for the arbitral tribunal itself to liquidate the penalty payments it has ordered (new Article 1468-1 of the Code of Civil Procedure). The decision liquidating the penalty payment is thus expressly characterised as an arbitral award by the government circular presenting the decree.
This mechanism provides a welcome degree of coherence: the arbitrator who issues a decision is now fully empowered to enforce it through financial penalties (astreintes). This spares parties an unnecessary detour through domestic courts to obtain delayed-compliance sanctions. However, notable procedural differences remain: while decisions of the French enforcement judge (JEX) are subject to standard appeals, an arbitral award liquidating penalties can only be challenged via setting-aside proceedings (recours en annulation).
C. Digitalisation and flexible formal requirements for the award (Articles 1480-1, 1515 and 1516-1 of the French Code of Civil Procedure)
Among the most consensual measures in the Ancel-Clay group’s report was Proposal No. 14, which advocated enshrining the concept of the electronic award.
Indeed, the report highlighted the obsolescence of Articles 1487 and 1513 of the Code of Civil Procedure, derived from the 1958 New York Convention, which make enforcement dependent upon the production of an “original” or a “copy” of the award. In the context of a dematerialised arbitration, this formal requirement becomes unsuitable, as electronic documents have no tangible physical form.
This modernisation has now been achieved: the decree expressly authorises awards to be rendered in digital form, through the insertion of Articles 1480-1 and 1480-2 into the Code of Civil Procedure.
A fundamental qualification must nevertheless be made with regard to international arbitration concerning dematerialisation.
New Article 1480-1 of the Code of Civil Procedure establishes the principle that an award may be drawn up and signed electronically. However, although this principle does apply to international arbitration (through the reference contained in Article 1506, 4°), the decree deliberately excludes the application of new Article 1480-2, paragraph 3, to international arbitration.
In other words: an international arbitrator now has the right to render a digital award, but is not subject to the technical constraints of a “qualified electronic signature” (within the meaning of the European eIDAS Regulation). A simple digital or digitised signature is sufficient, thereby preserving the flexibility and adaptability indispensable to international trade.
Furthermore, new Article 1516-1, applicable to international arbitration, enshrines an autonomous procedure for the recognition of awards, formally distinct from exequatur.[1]
This development follows in the wake of the Hydro case (French Court of Cassation, First Civil Chamber, 15 May 2024, No. 23-11.012). Here, the Court of Cassation reaffirmed that while insolvency rules stay enforcement against a debtor, an award can still receive exequatur solely to determine the claim.
New Article 1516-1 follows on from that decision: it provides the creditor with a tailored mechanism for asserting its award and declaring its claim as a liability in insolvency proceedings, without risking a dispute over the granting of exequatur.
Outside the context of insolvency proceedings, however, the practical usefulness of an autonomous application for recognition is open to doubt. It is difficult to see which creditor would seek recognition of its right alone, when it has the possibility of obtaining exequatur directly in order to compel its debtor.
D. The supporting judge (Articles 1468, 1469 and 1505 of the French Code of Civil Procedure)
Far from fostering rivalry between state courts and private arbitration, Decree No. 2026-741 upholds the vision of the supporting judge (juge d’appui) as a genuine partner to the arbitral tribunal. Although the final text stops short of the sweeping expansion proposed in the Ancel-Clay working group report—a move that several practitioners had deemed ‘inopportune’ during consultations—it nonetheless provides for a targeted consolidation of the judge’s powers.
The revised Articles 1468, 1469, and 1505 of the Code of Civil Procedure thus outline an expanded framework for judicial assistance, structured around two major developments:
First, the supporting judge (juge d’appui) is empowered, under expedited proceedings on the merits (procédure accélérée au fond), to grant provisional enforceability to interim or conservatory measures ordered by arbitrators (Article 1468 of the Code of Civil Procedure). This mechanism is subject to strict safeguards: the judge may refuse exequatur if it would cause serious harm or breach public policy.
Second, the decree authorizes the juge d’appui to order the production of documents held by third parties residing in France (new Article 1505, 5° of the Code of Civil Procedure for international matters). This addresses a long-standing procedural gap, offering arbitrators and parties a judicial remedy to overcome third-party non-compliance.
Caution is required, however: while the decree enhances the effectiveness of the supporting judge (juge d’appui), it leaves behind a degree of procedural uncertainty. Article 22, which sets the entry into force for 1 January 2027 under a three-tiered transitional regime – depending on the date of the arbitration agreement, the constitution of the tribunal, or the award – is silent regarding Articles 1468, 1469, and 1505. Absent legislative clarification, legal practice will have to determine whether these newly granted powers apply immediately to any application filed with the juge d’appui after 1 January 2027, or whether their application hinges on the date of the arbitration agreement or the tribunal’s constitution. »
E. The new regime before the Paris Court of Appeal (Articles 1523, 1527-1 et seq. of the French Code of Civil Procedure)
Regarding avenues of appeal, the decree clarifies the starting point of the time limit for appealing an order refusing exequatur: the limitation period now runs from notification of the decision, rather than from formal service by a judicial officer (commissaire de justice) (new Article 1523 of the Code of Civil Procedure).
While this terminological shift is ostensibly intended to simplify and modernize the procedure, practitioners express reservations about its practical effect. In exequatur proceedings, court registries rarely notify decisions directly to the parties. As a result, counsel must still arrange for formal service via a judicial officer (commissaire de justice)- which remains, in essence, a form of notification.
This development nevertheless marks the culmination of a substantial debate during the preparatory work.
The Ancel-Clay group’s report proposed a general shift towards notification for all procedural challenges and court orders in arbitration matters, in order to align Arbitration Law with paperless practices while easing formal constraints on litigants.
The French Arbitration Committee (Comité Français de l’Arbitrage) strongly resisted this blanket approach. It maintained that service by a commissaire de justice must be preserved to mark the precise dies a quo for statutory challenge periods—including actions to set aside and exequatur appeals—ensuring an irrefutable date of service that is vital in international contexts.
The decree of 6 August 2026 therefore adopts a compromise: while service remains the rule for annulment proceedings or appeals against an exequatur order, the decree introduces notification only for orders refusing exequatur.
« This clarification demands increased diligence from legal counsel. Given that court registries rarely act on their own initiative, the burden falls on the proactive party to formally serve the ruling without delay in order to start the clock on the limitation period for appeal.
Another amendment – this time unexpected – concerns the powers of the First President of the Court of Appeal (Premier président de la cour d’appel) or the pre-trial judge (Conseiller de la mise en état) when ruling on an application to stay or adjust the enforcement of an award.
As a reminder, Article 1526, paragraph 2, of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that “the First President ruling in summary proceedings or, once seized, the pre-trial judge may stay or adjust the enforcement of the award if such enforcement is liable to cause serious prejudice to the rights of a party.” (author’s translation)
Under the regime established by the 2011 decree, this provision enabled parties to seek a stay or adjustment of the enforcement of an international award in the context of annulment proceedings or an appeal against an exequatur order, provided enforcement threatened serious harm to a party’s rights.
For awards rendered as from 1 January 2027, new Article 1526 restricts this power: the words “stay or adjust” are replaced by the single verb “suspend”.
In other words, the First President or the pre-trial judge will now only be able to “suspend” enforcement: the power to “adjust” it therefore appears to have been simply and purely removed.
As Jérôme Ortscheidt noted on 7 August, this measure comes as one of the decree’s genuine “summer surprises.[2]” Neither the Ancel-Clay group’s March 2025 report nor the Ministry of Justice’s draft decree submitted for public consultation contemplated stripping the First President or the pre-trial judge of this power.
Such a departure is startling in both form and substance, prompting the question: was this a deliberate policy choice, or simply a drafting oversight ?
In any event, this withdrawal raises concerns regarding the attractiveness of Paris as a seat of arbitration. By removing the possibility of ordering balanced intermediate measures adjusting enforcement – such as placing the sums awarded into escrow -the decree deprives the judge of a valuable tailor-made tool for protecting operators exposed to enforcement measures in France.
Finally, as an adjustment to the rules applicable to appeal proceedings requiring mandatory legal representation (Articles 901 to 930-1 of the Code of Civil Procedure), the decree introduces certain specific rules governing appeals against international awards.
Thus, the first act of the reform enshrines the practice arising from the procedural protocol of the International Commercial Chamber of the Paris Court of Appeal (CCIP-CA). Henceforth, new Article 1527-3 of the Code of Civil Procedure allows the parties to submit documents in a foreign language without prior translation, while the judge retains the power to request one if necessary.
In practice, it remains unlikely that the parties will be able to dispense with translation in languages other than English, and possibly Spanish. The CCIP-CA protocol itself provides for this exemption only for the English language.
In a similar vein, the new Article 1527-4 of the Code of Civil Procedure represents a notable step forward: during oral hearings, the court may now permit parties, witnesses, experts, and counsel to address the court directly in a foreign language. The judge nevertheless maintains control over procedural management and retains the discretion to appoint an interpreter if deemed necessary or for a party’s convenience, with advance costs allocated to whichever party the court designates.
Of greater interest to practitioners, the new Article 1527-5 seeks to reconcile the public nature of state court proceedings with the core principle of confidentiality native to international arbitration. While upholding the general principle of public hearings -unless the matter is ordered in camera (chambre du conseil) under Article 435 of the Code of Civil Procedure -the provision empowers the court to tailor the drafting of its reasoning and adjust the publication format of its judgment. This pragmatic mechanism is explicitly designed to safeguard trade secrets when parties bring court actions before the pre-trial judge or a reviewing court.
In light of these developments, an overarching question emerges: to what extent should arbitration carve out its own path away from general rules of civil procedure? While the purported ‘tailoring’ of standard appellate rules (Articles 901 to 930-1 of the Code of Civil Procedure) is welcomed by some practitioners, this growing divergence concerns many commentators, who fear an overly sharp rift with general civil procedure.
II. Beyond the Decree of 6 August 2026: What Lies Ahead for International Arbitration
While Decree No. 2026-741 of 6 August 2026 serves as the foundation for this reform, a comparison between the final text and the 40 recommendations from the Ancel-Clay report – as well as the initial draft published by the Ministry of Justice in December 2025 – reveals a deliberately narrow scope. Regulatory authorities appear to have prioritized legal certainty by shelving more controversial proposals.
A closer look at the final text highlights several major omissions and rollbacks from earlier drafts.
A. Deviations from the December 2025 Initial Draft
Expected provisions such as the requirement concerning the arbitrator’s civil and civic rights (Article 1450 of the Code of Civil Procedure), the strengthening of the principle of concentration of arguments before the arbitral tribunal (Article 1466 of the Code of Civil Procedure), and the explicit recognition that an arbitration agreement can arise from accepting an offer to arbitrate contained in a treaty (Article 1507 of the Code of Civil Procedure), are ultimately absent from the Decree.
B. Matters Omitted from « Phase 1 »
Aligning with reservations raised by the French Arbitration Committee (CFA), the decree maintains the formal divide between rules governing domestic arbitration (Articles 1442–1503) and those applying to international arbitration (Articles 1504–1527).
Furthermore, contrary to the Ancel-Clay report’s recommendations, parties retain the ability to explicitly waive their right to set aside an international award by mutual agreement (Article 1522).
The report had also suggested allowing state courts to stay proceedings so arbitral tribunals could rectify awards where necessary, but this mechanism was left out entirely.
Finally, the decree bypasses key proposals regarding party impecuniosity (Proposal 19), class/collective arbitration (Proposal 27), and expanding arbitrability to family, employment and consumer matters (Proposal No. 21).
C. The future of the Arbitration Code and the second decree
The grand ambition to create a standalone Arbitration Code (Proposal 1), alongside a second decree addressing less consensual measures, remains in limbo. Neither project has been officially adopted or formally abandoned – they simply remain on hold.
Conclusion
Decree No. 2026-741 is less a final destination than a starting line. A political promise long stalled by regulatory delays and lengthy consultations has finally materialized in the Code of Civil Procedure.
The result is a mixed bag. In the areas it touches, the text delivers on its core promise: it codifies existing practice without causing upheaval, reinforces a proven structure rather than dismantling it, and measuredly strengthens the role of the supporting judge (juge d’appui) without turning state courts into competitors of the tribunal.
Yet, the final scope is significantly narrower than what the December 2025 draft hinted at. This scaled-back ambition likely stems from scrutiny by the Conseil d’État or interministerial negotiations, though the exact deliberations remain behind closed doors.
For practitioners, the immediate priority is not to overhaul existing procedures, but to prepare for the three-tier transitional regime taking effect on 1 January 2027. Key ambiguities – particularly surrounding the role of the juge d’appui and enforcement modifications during setting-aside proceedings – will need to be ironed out before practical litigation begins.
Looking ahead, several unresolved topics remain on the agenda: expanding arbitrability, party impecuniosity, collective arbitration, and, most controversially, the long-rumoured standalone Arbitration Code.
The reform process is neither complete nor dead in the water. It moves forward in incremental steps, requiring practitioners to maintain close, critical oversight over future legislative developments.
[1] Recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award are two distinct legal concepts, often confused in practice: recognition is limited to acknowledging the regular existence of the award and granting it the authority of res judicata, without permitting coercive measures, whereas enforcement, obtained through an exequatur order, gives the award the enforceable force necessary to resort to coercive measures such as seizures of bank accounts or property, or penalty payments.
[2] Post by Jérôme Ortscheidt on LinkedIn dated 7 August 2026: https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7491457163878473728/?skipRedirect=true
