The Law of Nations
  • Home
  • About
  • Public International Law
  • Private International Law
  • Arbitration
  • Podcasts
  • Contact Us
Arbitration, Comparative Law 0

The view from France: Arbitral awards – Supreme Court rules on commercial contract vitiated by corruption

Our comparative law strand continues with analysis by Quentin Declève of an important recent French decision

By Quentin Declève · On December 15, 2017


On 13 September 2017, the French Supreme Court upheld two decisions of the Paris Court of Appeal which had refused to enforce an arbitral award handed down on the basis of a contract obtained through corruption.

In the case at hand, Indagro (a Swiss company) and Ancienne Maison Marcel Bauche (Bauche) (a French company) had concluded a contract for the purchase, by Bauche, of fertilizers in Russia. Based on the contract, the fertilizers were to be delivered in Africa on a ship chartered by Indagro. The parties had also agreed that Bauche would pay certain penalties to Indagro if the period for loading and unloading the goods was exceeded.

Following a delay in the loading/unloading operations, a dispute arose between the parties with respect to the payment of the penalties and Indagro initiated arbitral proceedings against Bauche.

the principle of res judicata obliged the French civil courts to follow the ruling reached by the criminal court

In the meantime, alleging that the employee who had negotiated the contract on its behalf had been corrupted by Indagro, Bauche initiated criminal investigations and requested the arbitral proceedings to be stayed pending the outcome of those criminal investigations. The sole arbitrator, however, made the stay of the arbitral proceedings conditional upon the deposit of a bank guarantee by Bauche. Bauche, however, was unable to provide the bank guarantee and was subsequently liquidated. The sole arbitrator then rendered two final awards in Indagro‘s favour. Those arbitral awards were then granted exequatur in France.

Bauche’s liquidator appealed the exequatur orders alleging that the recognition and enforcement of those two awards would be contrary to international public policy since it would give effect to an agreement obtained through corruption. This argument was later reinforced by the fact that the criminal investigations found Indagro guilty of having indeed corrupted Bauche’s employee.

The Paris Court of Appeal (and subsequently the Supreme Court) upheld the arguments raised by Bauche and overturned the exequatur orders.

In its decision of 13 September 2017, the Supreme Court confirmed the judgments of the Paris Court of Appeal and found, in particular, that the principle of res judicata obliged the French civil courts to follow the ruling reached by the criminal court. Since the criminal investigations concluded that the contract between Indagro and Bauche was made by fraud and corruption, enforcing an arbitral award which allowed Indagro to benefit from a vitiated contract violated French international public policy.

Editors’ Note: This post previously appeared on the International Litigation Blog, and is reproduced with permission and thanks.

Quentin Declève

Quentin Declève

Quentin Declève is an associate at Van Bael & Bellis, a Brussels-based leading independent law firm which specializes in European and international law. Quentin Declève litigates at both domestic and international levels and has, in particular, developed an expertise in the field of EU litigation (including EU sanctions and restrictive measures) and international litigation and arbitration. He is the author and editor of the International Litigation Blog (international-litigation-blog.com)




You Might Also Like

  • Arbitration

    Podcast 12: Crossovers between criminal and arbitration law

  • Arbitration

    Podcast No 11: Could national courts pose a threat to arbitration for international dispute work?

  • Arbitration

    Podcast No 10: Should business and human rights disputes be arbitrated?

No Comments

Leave a reply Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Mailing List

Sign up to our Mailing List

Categories

  • Arbitration
  • Book Review
  • Brexit
  • Business and Human Rights
  • Comparative Law
  • Constitutional Law
  • Criminal Law
  • Environmental Law
  • From the editors
  • Human Rights
  • International Trade
  • News Round-up
  • Podcasts
  • Private International Law
  • Public International Law
  • Uncategorized

Archives

  • November 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016

From Twitter

  • New post: why depriving Shamima Begum of her UK citizenship violates international law. https://t.co/I51X5qT8um… https://t.co/FF0p3hqE8Q

© Matrix Chambers. All rights reserved. | Accessibility | Terms and Conditions | Privacy Policy