Hastings International and Comparative Law Review Volume 4 Article 2 Number 2 Winter 1981 1-1-1981 The Reform of the French Procedural Law on Arbitration: An Analytical Commentary on the Decree of May 14, 1980 Thomas E. Carbonneau Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/ hastings_international_comparative_law_review Part of the Comparative and Foreign Law Commons, and the International Law Commons Recommended Citation Thomas E. Carbonneau, The Reform of the French Procedural Law on Arbitration: An Analytical Commentary on the Decree of May 14, 1980, 4 Hastings Int'l & Comp. L. Rev. 273 (1981). Available at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_international_comparative_law_review/vol4/iss2/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hastings International and Comparative Law Review by an authorized editor of UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Reform of the French Procedural Law on Arbitration: An Analytical Commentary on the Decree of May 14, 1980 By THOMAS E. CARBONNEAU* Diplme Sup~rieur d'Etudes Franqaises, Universitg de Poitiers (1971); A.B., Bowdoin College (1972); B.A., Oxford University (1975); J.D., University of Virginia (1978); M.A., Oxford University (1979); M.A., University of Virginia (1979); LL.M., Columbia University (1979); Assistant Professor,Tulane School of Law; Assistant Director of the Eason-Weinmann Center of Comparative Law. Table of Contents L Introduction ....................................................... 275 A. The Antecedent Legislation ................................... 275 B. The New Legislation ......................................... 276 C. Purpose of This Study ........................................ 278 II. The Emergence of a Common Policy Perspective: Domestic and International French Arbitral Law Compared ......................... 278 A. Unresolved Jurisdictional Issues ............................... 279' B. The Achievements of the Decree in Terms of a Policy Perspective on Arbitration ............................................... 279 C. The Fundamental Contribution ................................ 280 D. La Raison d'Etre ............................................. 281 I. Arbitration Agreements ............................................. 282 A. The Submission and the Compromissory Clause: The Old Regime 282 B. The New Regime ............................................ 283 C. Problems Which Fall Outside the Purview of the New Regime ... 283 D. Other Requirements .......................................... 285 E. The Possibility of Court Intervention: A First Look ............. 287 IV. General Rules of Arbitration ........................................ 288 A. Capacity to Act as an Arbitrator .............................. 288 B. Accepting the Terms of Reference ............................. 288 C. The Number of Arbitrators ................................... 289 D. The Time Limit Rule ........................................ 289 * This article was written in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of the Science of Law in the Faculty of Law, Columbia University. The author wishes to express his gratitude to Professors Reese, Szladits, and Bermann for their help and guidance in pursuing this study. Hastings Int'l and Comparative Law Review [Vol. 4 E. Judicial Intervention Defined: A Comprehensive Look ........... 290 F. The Jurisdictional Effects of the Agreement to Arbitrate ......... 292 V. The Arbitral Proceeding ............................................ 292 A. The Choice of Procedure ...................................... 293 B. A Grant of Increased Procedural Authority ..................... 294 C. Other Provisions ............................................. 296 D . W itnesses ................................................... 297 E. Submission of Arguments and Deliberations .................... 298 F. Staying the Proceeding ....................................... 298 G. Jurisdictional Authority to Hear Jurisdictional Challenge ........ 299 H. The Implications of the Jurisdictional Rule ..................... 300 I. Challenge to the Principle or Scope of Jurisdiction .............. 301 J. The Separability Controversy ................................. 301 VI. The Arbitral Award ................................................ 304 A. The Prior Legislation ......................................... 304 B. The New Regim e ............................................ 305 1. Confidentiality ......................................... 306 2. Further Assimilation ................................... 307 3. Powers of the Arbitrators ............................... 308 4. Article 464 Problem .................................... 308 5. The Global Impact of Article 35 ......................... 310 6. The Res Judicata Effect of Arbitral Awards ............. .311 7. The Decision Denying an Exequator ..................... 312 8. Other Provisions ....................................... 314 9. Ruling According to Substantive Legal Rules ............. 315 10. The Amiable Composition Problem ...................... 317 VII. Remedial Procedure for Challenging Arbitral Awards: The Means of R ecourse .......................................................... 319 A. The Previous Regime ......................................... 320 1. Opposition ............................................ 321 2. Pourvoi ............................................... 321 3. Appel r~formation ..................................... 321 4. Appel-nullitk .......................................... 322 5. Opposition en nullitg .................................. 323 6. General Features of the Former Remedial Actions ........ 323 7. Recours en revision and requite civile ................... 325 8. Tierce opposition ...................................... 326 B. The Purpose of the New Legislation ............................ 326 1. A ppeal ................................................ 327 2. Recours en annulation ................................. 327 3. The Effect of Amiable Composition ..................... 328 4. A Merits Ruling by the Court ........................... 329 5. Appeal Against a Decision Denying Enforceability ........ 334 6. Retention of Traditional Rules .......................... 334 V III. Conclusions ........................................................ 336 A. Assessment of the Means of Recourse Reforms .................. 336 B. The Principal Innovation: Judicial and Arbitral Cooperation ..... 338 C. A Global Assessment ......................................... 339 No. 2] French Arbitration Law I. INTRODUCTION Prior to May 1980, the French domestic law on arbitration" had not been subject to any substantial legislative reform since the early nineteenth century. The procedural part of that law, which contained practically all of the French legislative provisions apply- ing to arbitration, was out of date and in need of reconsideration. Despite the considerable French procedural law reforms enacted in 1975,2 articles 1005 through 1028 of the Nouveau Code de procg- dure civile had not been revised to any significant extent since the enactment of the Code de procedure civile in 1806. 8 A. The Antecedent Legislation The French legal system had been living with provisions on domestic arbitration which, per force, contained gaps 4 and did not respond to many of the fundamental doctrinal issues that had sur- faced in arbitral practice and court litigatiort dealing with arbitra- tion since 1806.1 Despite the absence of modern legislation, con- temporary French courts exhibited a remarkably receptive attitude towards arbitration, and recourse to arbitration was frequent in 1. See, e.g., Level, Compromis d'arbitrage[1976] JURIS-CLASSEUR CIVIL [J.C.C.] 2. 2. See Decree No. 75-1123 of December 5, 1975 [1975] Journal Officiel [J.O.] 12521. See also E. BLANC, LA NOUVELLE PROCEDURE CIVILE (1973); C. PARODI, L'ESPRIT GENERAL ET LES INNOVATIONS DU NOUVEAU CODE DE PROCEDURE CIVILE (1976); Bandrac, Indications som- maires sur les principales modifications dans les regles ant~rieures introduites par le d6cret du 5 d~c. 1975 instituant un Noveau Code de procedure civile [1976] Juris-classeur p~riodique, la semaine juridique [J.C.P.] II No. 2799; Bertin, Le grand Noel du prockdurier: le Nouveau Code de procedure civile [1976] 1 & 2 GAz. PALMS Doctrine 55, 115, 153, 225, 313, 350, 424, & 581; Blin, Le Noveau Code de procedure civile ou l'expropriationdu justi- ciable [1976], 1 GAZ. PALMS Doctrine 212. 3. See, e.g., Level, supra note 1, at 2. 4. The flexibility and moderation of the applicable legislation was evident in the fact that the relevant codal provisions were neither numerous nor exceedingly detailed in sub- stance and covered only the most salient issues or ones which could arise in exceptional circumstances. These characteristics of the procedural law on arbitration reflected a legisla- tive policy of giving arbitration the "breathing room" it needed in order to function prop- erly. See Nou. C. PR. CiV. (Fr.), bk. 3, Des arbitrages (Dalloz 72d ed. 1979). 5. For example, although the French courts rendered a number of rulings on this ques- tion, there was no codal provision relating to the extent and scope of the arbitrators' juris- diction. In fact, there was disagreement on this question between the French Supreme Court for private law matters (Cour de cassation) and