French Arbitration reform (Decree of 6 August 2026): Between consolidating established principles and shifting the procedural balance ‍

‍

Decree No.2026-741 dated 6 August 2026 containing various measures to clarify and modernise the arbitral procedure is here... since this summer, admittedly. Some might say that it has been a while, but insofar as its entry into force is set for 1 January 2027, there is still time to join the plethora of commentaries.

Its most structural innovation concerns domestic arbitration: as a matter of principle, a challenge to an award will no longer suspend enforcement. Nevertheless, the scope of the modifications — as they stand — must be assessed precisely. Codifying an existing solution is not the same as creating new law. To understand the reform, one must therefore distinguish what it confirms from what it transforms.

I. Solutions now enshrined in statutory law

1. The definition of the award: distinguishing dispute resolution from procedural organisation

Reference: article 7, 3° of the decree, creating article 1478 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code de procédure civile).

The new article defines an award by its function: it definitively settles all or part of the dispute, whether on jurisdiction, on a procedural plea capable of terminating the proceedings, or on the merits. A decision that merely organises procedural steps or exchanges between the parties does not meet this definition.

To take an example. An arbitrator renders two decisions: the first sets the hearing date, the second definitively affirms jurisdiction to hear the dispute. The first merely organises the procedure, whereas the second settles a jurisdictional dispute and thus constitutes an award.

To illustrate. In a decision dated 5 March 2014, the Cour de cassation approved a Court of Appeal’s decision to dismiss enforcement proceedings against an arbitral decision because of its nature. The Court of Appeal found that the arbitration agreement reserved the parties’ right to request a review of the tribunal's decision. This meant the decision would only acquire res judicata effect if no review was requested. Consequently, the Court of Appeal rightly concluded that the tribunal's decision, having been validly challenged via a request for review, could not be construed as an arbitral award, and could not be the subject of enforcement proceedings (Cass. 1re civ., 5 March 2014, No. 12‑29.112).

Before, this distinction was solely based on case law. Now, this distinction enjoys explicit statutory grounds in the Code de procedure civile.

2. Liquidating periodic penalties: an expressly recognised power

Reference: article 6 of the decree creating article 1468-1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code de procédure civile).

The arbitral tribunal will now be able to liquidate any periodic penalty payment it previously ordered, provided the tribunal’s mandate has not expired. A distinction must naturally be drawn between the decision granting the periodic penalty payment and the decision determining the final liquidated amount due.

To take an example. An arbitrator orders a company to produce a document subject to a periodic penalty payment. The company delays production. While arbitration is ongoing, the opposing party asks the arbitrator to fix the final sum owed for the delay.

Before, party agreement or tribunal power had to be specifically established. Now, article 1468-1 provides a direct statutory basis for this power. Conversely, it would be inaccurate to claim that state courts were previously always mandatory or that all judicial intervention will now become redundant.

3. Setting aside an award on jurisdictional grounds: the Court of Appeal no longer automatically decides the merits

Reference: article 11, 1° of the decree, rewriting article 1493 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code de procédure civile).

This concerns the power of the annulment judge (juridiction de l'annulation) to rule on the merits of the dispute itself. Former article 1493 provided that upon setting aside an award, the state court ruled on the merits of the dispute within the bounds of the arbitrator's mandate, unless agreed otherwise between the parties. The new text excludes cases where an award is set aside on jurisdictional grounds, whether affirming or denying jurisdiction.

To take an example. A supplier claims payment of an invoice. The contract contains an arbitration clause, yet the arbitrator refuses to hear the case, wrongly finding that the clause does not cover the dispute. The Court of Appeal sets aside the award onthe grounds that the tribunal did have jurisdiction.

Before, under the general drafting of article 1493, the Court of Appeal would proceed to decide the merits, i.e. examining the invoice, unless the parties agreed otherwise. Now, under the new drafting of article 1493, the Court of Appeal corrects the arbitrator's jurisdictional ruling but will not decide the underlying dispute itself; whether the invoice must be paid remains for an arbitrator to decide.

4. Dismissal of challenges on the merits and exequatur: clarifying enforcement grants

References: article 10 of the decree rewriting article 1498; article 17, 5° rewriting article 1527 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code de procédure civile).

Dismissing a challenge to an award on the merits, whether an appeal or annulment proceedings, already conferred a leave to enforce the award (exequatur). The decree now clarifies that this applies specifically to dismissal on the merits. It adds that, where enforcement cannot be pursued, a dismissal on the merits confers formal recognition of the award.

To take an example. A company applies to set aside an award. The Court reviews and rejects its arguments on the merits: this rejection confers exequatur to the award. This differs from situations where a challenge is dismissed on procedural grounds without reviewing the merits, for example, due to its inadmissibility.

II. The major structural shift: challenges to domestic awards no longer suspend enforcement

Reference: article 12 of the decree modifying in particular articles 1496 and 1497 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code de procédure civile).

Under the previous regime, challenging a domestic award (or during the time limit to challenge it) automatically suspended enforcement, unless the tribunal had granted provisional enforcement (exécution provisoire).

The new drafting of article 1496 reverses this default rule: a challenge, whether an appeal and an action to set aside, no longer suspends enforcement. However, new article 1497 allows a party to petition the state court for a stay of enforcement if immediate execution is likely to cause serious harm to its rights.

To take an example. A supplier obtains an award ordering its client to pay an invoice. The client files an application to set aside the award.

Before, unless provisional enforcement was ordered, the application automatically stayed enforcement. Now, filing a challenge does not block enforcement: the client must obtain a stay via court decision. The supplier would still be required to obtain an enforcement order (exequatur) to proceed with forced execution. The commercial implications are clear: challenging an award can no longer be used as a tactic to stall enforcement, making applications for a stay of enforcement an immediate strategic issue.

III. Adjustments of varying scope

1. "Arbitration centres": a terminological update

Reference: article 3 of the decree modifying in particular articles 1450, 1452 to 1454, 1456 and 1457 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code de procédure civile).

The decree expressly introduces references to "arbitration centres", alongside other entities or individuals organising the proceedings. A welcomed terminological clarification that does not, however, alter existing dispute resolution frameworks.

2. Multi-contractclaims: a single proceeding under defined conditions

Reference: article 4 of the decree, creating article 1462-1; article 21, 2°, for its application in international matters.

The text enables parties to submit claims arising under multiple contracts to a single arbitral proceeding, subject to the applicable institutional rules. Where rules are silent, this remains possible unless a party objects, provided the arbitration agreements are compatible. Note that this refers to initiating a single arbitration rather than consolidating existing, separate arbitrations.

To take an example. A buyer purchases equipment and enters into a separate installation contract with the same supplier. Defect claims arise regarding both manufacturing and installation.

Before, joinder/consolidation required specific contractual mechanisms. Now, in the absence of institutionalrules allowing it, an explicit statutory basis permits bringing claims together, provided no party objects.

3. Proportionality: tailoring the proceedings to the dispute

Reference: article 5 of the decree supplementing article 1464 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code de procédure civile).

Parties and arbitrators must strive to adapt the proceedings to the complexity and financial stakes involved. This wording does not, however, create an automatic, mandatory expedited track for all low-value cases.

To take an example. A dispute concerns a single invoice with few relevant documents. A short procedure with targeted exchanges suffices. Conversely, a dispute involving hidden technical defects may require in-depth expert investigation and a complex procedure.

Before, procedural adaptation was already possible. Now, efforts to adapt proceedings to the reality of the dispute have an explicit statutory foundation which, in turn, should enable greater accountability regarding procedural choices.

4. Internationality: from interests of international commerce to international economic interests

Reference: article 14 of the decree modifying article 1504 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code de procédure civile).

The decree replaces the criterion of “interests of international commerce" (intérêts du commerce international) with “international economic interests” (intérêts économiques internationaux).

5. The supporting judge (juge d’appui): better-defined interventions

References: article 8 of the decree, modifying articles 1468 and 1469; article 15, supplementing article 1505 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code deprocédure civile).

Two key developments. First, the supporting judge (juge d'appui) can now grant enforceability to provisional or interim measures ordered by arbitrators. Second, they are the designated judge to assist with third-party evidence gathering, including in the context of international arbitration regarding third parties residing in France. However, judicial assistance in obtaining evidence should not be presented as entirely new: the decree modifies an existing mechanism of article 1469.

6. Incidental recognition: giving effect to an award outside of enforcement

References: article 9 of the decree creating article 1487-1; article 17, 1° creating article 1516-1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code de procédure civile).

Recognition and exequatur serve distinct purposes. The new texts expressly allow awards to be recognised either via direct order or incidentally during other legal proceedings.

To take an example. An award resolves a contractual dispute. In other legal proceedings, a party wishes the judge or arbitrator to take this award into consideration.

This does not mean that any award to which a party refers to will automatically be recognised. The practical interest is to clearly distinguish two approaches: obtaining an order to pursue enforcement and claiming legal effects regardless of enforcement.

Conclusion: reading the reform through its timeline

The reform should neither be framed as a radical revolution nor as a routine editorial clean-up. It combines technical clarifications, new procedural tools and one major shift regarding in the relationship between challenge and enforcement in domestic arbitration.

For practitioners, timing is everything. Which version of the text applies to the case? Article 22 governs temporal application based on the date of the arbitration agreement, tribunal constitution, or issuance of the award. The new rules on suspensive effect will for instance apply to awards rendered after the entry into force on 1 January 2027.

Efficiency requires precise analysis before making tactical choices whether grouping claims, tailoring proceedings, requesting judicial assistance or anticipating enforcement.

Stay tuned as a proposed bill was tabled on 13 October 2026 at the Assemblée nationale (Proposition de loi n°3310). This bill notably seeks to clarify public entities’ right to resort to arbitration (Articles 1 & 2), centralise the powers of the supporting judge (juge d'appui) at the Tribunal judiciaire of Paris regarding international arbitration, and specialised tribunaux judiciaires regarding domestic arbitration (Article 3), and secure post-employment arbitration agreements (Article 4).

Who needs Netflix when Parliament delivers cliffhangers of this quality?