Analysis & Comments on Arbital Awards.

Betto’s Comment:

From a comment on this award made by the French jurist, Betto, the following can be concluded:

1. This award is related to the principle of an adversarial process or principle of contradiction (Le Principle de la Contradiction). Such principle shall be available and it existed before common courts or arbitral tribunals according to the provision of the Article 16, 1484/4 of the New French Procedure Code. Negligence in the application of this principle by the judge or arbitrator will lead to the award being set aside.
2. The merits of the award are related to the performance of the President of the Court of Arbitration in his capacity as an Amiable Compositor, who was assigned to hear the dispute held between two subcontractors bound up in a contractual relationship with the owners of a group of projects, to telephone an outside person in the dispute, i.e the general entrepreneur (L’entrepreneur general), and obtain from him information relating to the technical conditions, specifications and the work system which was the subject of the dispute.
3. The respondent (opposing party) requested the Court of Appeal (Cour d’appeal de Rennes) to set aside the arbitration award on the grounds that as the information was obtained after pronouncement of the arbitration award form, which was in violation of the principle of due process (Article 1484/4 New French Procedure Code), the information were not a subject of argument by the litigant parties in the arbitration dispute before the pronouncement of the arbitration award. In addition, it violated the mission of the Court of Arbitration (Article 1484/3 New French Procedure Code), which determined in the arbitration clause that any information obtained by the court or any of its authorized members should be subject to verbal argument by the litigant parties in the session, and this did not occur.
4. The Court of Appeal in Rennes refused these pleas regarding the setting aside of the arbitrator’s award on the grounds that the award had not been established at any time completely on the telephone conversation.

In this repect, the Court of Appeal agrees with what was stated by the Court of Appeal in Paris in its award on 28/3/1996 and 7/11/1996 in that the information that should be subject to the argument of the parties is that information obtained and used in the arbitral award.

The Court of Appeal in Rennes, in its discretionary power, evaluated that the information obtained by telephone call had not been used by the arbitral tribunal and, consequently, its award had not been established on it.  Therefore, the court refused the respondent’s plea of setting aside.

5. However, the French Court of Cassation nullified the arbitral award of the Court of Appeal because it was contrary to due process in that all the information obtained must be the subject of argument by the litigant parties and must be disclosed to the parties, regardless of its effect on the arbitral award.

---

Fifth: The Principle of Due Process

The Court of Appeal in Paris decided in its arbitral award issued on 25/11/1997 that “The principle of due process requires notification to every litigant party by the merits of arbitration, which the arbitral award is based upon”.

The arbitrator – according to this principle – is bound to disclose his pleas and defence to the other party during the arbitration proceedings. In contrast, he will not be considered to be violating the due process principle when he shows another true legal adaptation for the subject matter of the dispute.

Accordingly, the legal basis related to this new adaptation will be applied, provided that such adaptation shall be based on justifications available in the merits of the dispute that is specified and presented, as well as a subject of argument between litigant parties.

Comment:

In this award, the litigant parties adapted the contract concluded between them as a sale contract, but the arbitral tribunal decided that the correct adaptation of the contract was as a participation or partnership contract. In this case, the arbitrators refused to invite the litigant parties regarding this new adaptation for the contract because this adaptation was based on facts already discussed in detail by the litigant parties. Furthermore, the arbitrators, according to the new adaptation, applied the basis of negligent responsibility, which the court of appeal upholds, instead of the basis of contractual responsibility, which the litigant parties wished to apply.

As mentioned previously, the Kuwaiti arbitration law in both normal and judicial arbitration lacks provisions that deal with the principle of due process in detail.  Inserting such provisions into Kuwaiti arbitration law will eliminate many obstacles that occur in the arbitration process.

However, Article 12 of JAL 11/95 considered a flexible text to repair such breach, as I mentioned in the preceding case.

Article 113 of the Procedure Law contains a general explanation of the principle of due process, such as the reciprocal rights between the litigant parties at the time of submitting their objection or plea.  However, it is not sufficiently detailed to cover all the concomitant circumstances which may arise in the arbitration process based mainly on the due process principle.

Sixth: The Limit Time for Arbitration

The French Court of Cassation decided to cancel the appeal award which refused to set aside an arbitration award based on the expiry of the time limit for arbitration without showing the commencement of the limit time for arbitration and the conditions of its extension.

Comment:

The limit time for arbitration is specified in Kuwaiti Arbitration Law No 38/80 as that specified by agreement between litigant parties. If there is no such agreement, it will be 6 months and may be extended by agreement.  This is stated in Article 181 of Civil and Commerce Procedure Code: “If in the agreement on arbitration the litigant parties do not  stipulate a time for award, the arbitrator shall arbitrate within six months from the date the litigant parties were notified of the arbitration session …”

In judicial arbitration, the judicial Arbitration Panels are not bound to hear the dispute within a specific period, as Article 7 of the Code 11/95 provides that: “In exception to the provisions of Article 181 of the Civil & Commercial Procedure Code, the Arbitration Panel shall render its verdict or award without abiding by a certain period”.

Seventh: Jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal

The Court of Appeal in Rennes decided on 6 September 1984 that “the standard that specifies the judicial authority for arbitrators in the arbitration process is hidden in the subject of dispute and not in the nature of rules governing resolving the dispute, namely, such standard can be conceived and found through the subject matter of dispute and not through mere rules that control the dispute”.

Facts of Dispute and Awards:

1. The dispute was between two stock companies, one of whom claimed that the other has been carried out illegal activity which caused damage and harm to it. The two companies agreed to submit the dispute to the territorial arbitration center located in the area of jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal of Rennes.
2. The arbitral award produced on 4/7/1983 decided the following:

1. The dispute may be arbitrated, and the arbitral tribunal shall have the power  to resolve it.
2. The opposing company (respondent) committed a fault, consequently the award obligated it to cease the activity causing that fault, under threat of a fine for each day of delay. Later the arbitral tribunal obligated the respondent company to pay an amount of 10 thousand francs as a legal remedy, for the reasons stated in the award, as well as the expenses and legal arbitrator fees.

3. The Court of Appeal refused the respondent company’s pleas, the most important of which was that the arbitration judges had no power to resolve the dispute, on the basis that the dispute related to the public order principle that permitted freedom of competence and freedom of trading. The court of appeal refuted these pleas and decided to refuse them, and it upheld the appealed award that it had power to resolve the dispute.
4. In fact, the idea of excluding disputes from the arbitration process excessively on the pretext of that they relate to the principle of public order is today criticized and this issue has had significant importance in past and present judiciaries.

Most arbitral awards decide on the nonjurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal to resolve a dispute based on the above pretext. In fact, jurisdiction means the ability given to the judge to hear the dispute, and through this jurisdiction the judge enjoys authority to resolve the dispute. If the arbitrator was a judge, as in the Kuwaiti judicial arbitration system, the situation would be the same, i.e. the arbitrator judge, in addition to his jurisdiction to hear the dispute, has the power to resolve the dispute.

According to the Kuwaiti law, the arbitrator has no right to decide on his jurisdiction or not. The matter is left to the competent court in hearing the dispute, and the original that the arbitrator – in contractual arbitration – has no power to resolve his jurisdiction or nonjurisdiction, but he has the power to resolve the dispute. This is emphasised by Article 173 Clause 4 in that it states: “Courts shall have no jurisdiction over hearing the dispute agreed to be arbitrated. Waiver to plea for nonjurisdiction may be made explicitly or implicitly.”

For the judicial Arbitration Panels formed according to Code No. 11/95, it has the right to resolve pleas regarding its jurisdiction or nonjurisdiction; it is provided in Article 5 of this Code that: “Arbitration Panel shall determine on all primary issues brought before it which are within the competence of civil and commercial judiciary as well as determine on the relevant rebuttals and pleas to its jurisdiction as duly raised, including those grounded on nonexistence of an arbitration agreement, its lapse, nullity, invalidity, irrelevancy, non-jointer or non-inclusiveness of the dispute issue”.

From the above we see that this Code gave wide jurisdiction to the judicial Arbitration Panels to confront pleas relating to its jurisdiction or nonjurisdiction.

Eight: The Principle of Due Process & Setting Aside Arbitration Award

The Appeal Court in Paris on 12 March 1998 published the following in Arbitrage Magazine No. (1) in 1999:  the arbitral proceedings – pleading file – “Authority of arbitrators respecting the principle of due process” – obligation of arbitrators – setting aside arbitration awards.

1. The principle of due process requires that all parties in a dispute are to be informed about what the other litigant party has in the way of documents and evidence. The information should be given such that there is suitable time for the other party to reply to his opponent’s presentation. This is a right extending to both litigant parties in a dispute.
2. Arbitrators shall respect the rights of the litigant parties (confrontation rights) or else the arbitral award will be set aside.

This dispute related to an arbitration agreement concluded between two commercial companies on 24 February 1995 and a group of other companies. These two parties were  not enabled to show their defence and pleas during the arbitration process, which was considered a violation committed by arbitrators against the award. Consequently, the award was considered nullified.

Comment:

The right of a litigant party to be informed about the presentation of the other litigant’s means of defense, documents, applications and evidence is considered one of the fundamental rights of the litigant parties. This principle has long been imposed in the litigation field and aims to ensure the quality and progress of arbitration litigation.

However, it seems that this principle is not always respected.

The Court of Versailles, on 13 July 1994, decided that the rules of the legal profession do not stipulate the right of a litigant party to view the opponent’s pleading files except when the opponent party explicity applies them. This judgement is not acceptable and any file deposited by an opposing party must be reciprocated between the litigant parties. The principle of respecting the contradiction (due process) requires the reciprocation of the pleading files between the litigant parties of this case.

Finally, it can be said that the arbitrator must respect the due process, as must the judge, and they must also respect the two elements of the confrontation, which are:

First Element: The right of the litigant to present whatever will support his point of view.

Second Element: The right of litigant to view his opponent’s pleadings and to be informed of them in sufficient time for him to be able to reply to those pleadings.

Accordingly, due process is considered one of the most important principles that the arbitration procedure is based upon to achieve greater flexibility and success. The parties as well as the arbitrators have to respect and take care to apply it. Neglecting this principle may result in the setting aside of arbitral awards.

As stated above, due process in arbitration or the judiciary is not expressly provided for in Kuwaiti legislation, but it is a general principle which judges have to respect. The arbitrator has to respect it as well. One of the aspects of this principle is the right to information, i.e. any litigant party has the right to view the documents submitted by the other litigant party, but such right does not bind a litigant submit an application in response. Not considering this principle may lead to setting aside the award in an original action according to the Article 186, Clause (c), which provides that “... Any concerned party may request nullification of the final arbitrator’s award in the event of the following cases, even when otherwise is agreed upon prior to its rendering. The third clause of the Article states:

3. If a nullification of award or the proceedings which may prejudice the award occurs.”

Due process must also be respected by judicial Arbitration Panels. Any litigant party, before the judicial arbitration, must be able to easily view the documents submitted by the other litigant party without need for presenting an application to do so.

Ninth: Internal Arbitration & Enforcement of Arbitral Award

This case is about an internal arbitration. The subject matter is about a process which does not include in itself any activity or circulation for wealth or services or outside payment. All its activities firmly enclosed inside the country (internal arbitration). The parties in dispute are the French company CN against the French company Minhal.

Summary of facts:

The arbitration process in this dispute is related to enforcement conditions; revoking the lease contract, managing, and using a commercial shop (a hotel located in Paris) between two companies belonging to a foreign mother company.

As is normal, this process does not include any transference of wealth or services or outside payment (i.e. outside the borders of the country) and the execution of the contract does not evoke the interests of international trading.

As the Amiable Compositeur Clause is considered a consensual concession between the parties from the consequences and benefits of the legal rules, the parties consequently lose the legal characteristics  provided by these rules. So, the arbitrators are to have power to amend and reduce the results of the contractual clauses that comply with the public interest of the two parties.

The arbitrators, in this dispute, should specify the type of arbitration, i.e. whether internal or international. The reason for this is that there is a foreign company participating in the capital of the two French companies, as the two companies belong to a group of foreign companies or to a foreign mother company.

Comments:

The arbitration award decided to consider the arbitration internal Article 1492 of the French Civil and Commerce Procedure Code which provides that the arbitration is considered international if it relates to international trade interests, i.e. the process must include transfer or circulation of funds or services outside the borders.

In this case, doubt was raised about the type of arbitration because the litigant parties were French juridical persons who were controlled by a group of foreign companies.  However, the Court of Appeal in Paris – when one of the litigant parties challenged the arbitral award before the Court of Appeal – resolved the dispute and decided that the process of “leasing and managing the hotel” did not include any activity or circulation of funds or wealth outside the borders, and the contract was executed in France. Consequently, the arbitration was considered an internal one because the process was not carried out outside the country.

If we view Kuwaiti arbitration code in this regard, Kuwaiti law considers the arbitration to be internal if it was produced inside the State of Kuwait, and foreign if it was issued outside the borders of the country. This fact was manifested in Article 182 of the Civil and Commercial Procedure Code which provides that: “… the Arbitrator’s award shall be rendered in Kuwait, otherwise the prescribed rules applicable to the arbitrators’ awards in a foreign country shall be applied in that respect.” So, the execution of each one varies from the other. Article 185 of Civil and Commercial Procedure Code deals with the procedures which should be followed at the time of executing the national award. It provides that: “The award rendered by the arbitrator shall not be enforceable, save under an order issued by the Chief judge of the court where the award was deposited with its Clerical Department upon the request of one of the concerned parties, after having perused the award rendered, the agreement on arbitration and meanwhile verifying the nonexistence of the impediments of its implementation and the basis of appeal limitation, if the award is appealable and not urgently self-executing. The writ of execution shall be impressed at the foot of the original award document.”

Regarding the foreign arbitral award and how it is applied in the State of Kuwait, Article 199 of the Civil and Commercial Procedure Code provides that: “Awards and orders made in a foreign country may be enforced in Kuwait under the same conditions as those envisaged for the code of that country to execute the rules and orders made in Kuwait.

An enforcement order (exequatur) is requested before the court. In normal situations, bringing suit and the writ of execution is not possible unless the following is assured:

1. The award or writ is issued by the competent court according to the rules of the country where it was made.
2. The litigant parties in the action, in the place where the foreign award was made, should be assigned to attend and they are accurately represented.
3. The arbitral award or the writ is res judicata according to the law of the court which issued it.
4. It is not contrary to an award or writ previously made in a court in Kuwait and does not involve violating the morals or public policy in Kuwait.

Article 200 of the Kuwaiti Procedure Code provides that: “the awards of Article 1999 stated above are applied on the arbitrators’ awards made in a foreign country. The award should be issued in a matter that can be arbitrated according to the Kuwaiti law and enforceable in the country where it was issued”.

Tenth: Appealing An Arbitral Award & Amiable Compositeur

On 16 October 1997, an arbitral award was issued in a dispute between Sofriga Co. and GSM Co. regarding the public policy matter. The rules stated in Article 1482 of the French Civil and Commercial Procedure Code relate to public policy and this Article allowed the arbitral award to be appealed as a rule unless the right to appeal was waived in the arbitration agreement.

In this case, the facts of the arbitral award are related to a procedural matter. The litigant parties agreed, according to the arbitration agreement (Une Clause Compromissoir), to resort to the Amiable Composition. Such agreement assured the litigant parties’ concession to resort to appeal. The parties conceded, by a common agreement between them, to resort to appeal and agreed to resort to the amiable composition. This agreement was made prior the dispute

The concession is explicit or implicit, and in this case the concession was implicit, that is, it recognised the arbitrator’s authority and power of the amiable composition throughout the arbitration clauses stated in the contract. Their agreement that the award is enforceable without appeal is considered as a special concession.

Article 1482 of the French Civil and Commerce Procedure Code is based on the principle deciding that in the case of resorting to the common court of the country to amend the arbitral award, the tribunal justice will lose an important aspect of its efficiency and importance.

Placing the dispute before the judiciary of the country will lead to  cancellation of the advantages expected from arbitration, i.e. the freedom to select the arbitrators, speedy procedures and confidentiality.

Furthermore, an arbitral award may not be the subject of opposition proceedings or of a petition to vacate before judiciary. Such opposition proceedings may violate the essence of the arbitration itself. The arbitration refuses official justice in the interest of private justice.

For these reasons, the new Procedure Code showed – exception – the authority of the parties to set aside the right of appeal, which can be carried out upon a common agreement between them prior the dispute.

The provision of Article 1482 of the Civil and Commerce Procedure Code is based on waiving the right of appeal at the volition of the dispute parties.

If we view the Kuwaiti judicial arbitration code, we find that it is not allowed to challenge the arbitral awards issued by the Arbitration Panel except in cessation and for the reasons specified and stated in Article 10 of the Judicial Arbitration Code. Appeal against the award made by the Arbitration Panel is not allowed (last paragraph of Article 10 of JAL).

Conclusion:

There are many legal provisions and principles in arbitration law which have not been addressed in these papers because of the difficulty of obtaining arbitral awards about such legal principles. The legal provisions shown were derived from French arbitral awards and were only obtained after persistent research because the awards relate to confidential matters and are thus difficult to get hold of.  These awards are not allowed to be published with the consent of the parties involved in the dispute.

However, in this simple presentation of the arbitral awards, we found that there were some principles not decided in detail in the legal provisions which caused problems in the consequences that resulted from their occurrence as the due process, as explained above.  In addition, the judicial arbitration included wide jurisdictional authority given to the arbitration judge and this assisted in facilitating the arbitration procedures to be more speedily dealth with than the other systems where some of the arbitral procedures restrict the progress of the arbitration process to the point where it must be submitted to a competent court to resolve the dispute. Judicial arbitration system includes judicial elements who have the legal powers similar to the judges of the normal courts to successfully perform the procedures related to the arbitration process.

Arbitration in France

Arbitration procedures in France are regulated by Articles 1442 to 1507 contained the Fourth Book of the New Code of Civil Procedures. There are six main Sections, the first containing three separate chapters covering:

1. arbitration clauses in contracts,
2. agreements to arbitrate existing disputes, and
3. rules governing the tribunal.

ARBITRATION CLAUSES IN CONTRACTS.

Although we may view many of the provisions contained in the Articles as being obvious and logical, we must bear in mind that France has no Common Law to bolster shortcomings in the French procedures and thus they have to be detailed in the minutest degree.  For this reason we find that, for example, Article 1442 gives a clear and detailed definition of the arbitration clause (as the agreement by which the parties agree to submit any disputes arising to arbitration), and Article 1443 stipulates that the clause be either written into the contract or contained in a document to which the contract refers.

Article 1443, furthermore, requires that the appointment of arbitrators (or the provision to appoint arbitrators) is contained in the arbitration clause.

Article 1444 covers the subject of validly appointing or replacing arbitrators and gives relevant provisions.

Article 1445 states that submission of a dispute to arbitration can be done by one or both parties.

Article 1446 even goes so far as to stipulate that where a clause is void it is considered not to have been written.

AGREEMENTS TO ARBITRATE AN EXISTING DISPUTE

Article 1447 describes what an agreement to arbitrate a dispute is and Article 1448 states that such agreement must stipulate (a) the limits of the dispute to be arbitrated and (b) the means of appointing the arbitrator/s, whereas Article 1449 requires that the agreement be in writing. Article 1450 states that a dispute can be submitted to arbitration despite having already been brought before another jurisdiction.

THE TRIBUNAL AND ITS APPOINTMENT.

Article 1451 stipulates that an arbitrator can only be an individual but that if a corporation is appointed, then it has the power to organize the arbitration.

In the spirit of detailing everything minutely, we find that Article 1452 reiterates that only when the arbitrator/s have accepted their appointment is the tribunal complete. It also decrees that if an arbitrator is aware of a reason why he should not be appointed, he should so inform the parties.

Under Article 1453, only one arbitrator or an uneven number of arbitrators can be appointed. In cases where the parties have chosen an even number of arbitrators, Article 1454 states that the President of the Tribunal de Grande Instance may appoint a further arbitrator in order to make the number even.

Article 1455 provides that each party shall choose one arbitrator and the arbitral organisation shall choose the third.

Article 1456 sets the time limit of sex months from the date the last arbitrator was appointed for the tribunal to reach its decision, unless the parties have agreed otherwise. However, it also allows the parties or the tribunal, under rules contained in Article 1457, to ask the Court to extend this period.

One could say that Article 1458 is the corner stone of French arbitration law insofar as it states that if the issue is raised by one of the parties, a State Court must declare itself to not have jurisdiction if there exists a valid arbitration clause or agreement.

Article 1459 declares that any provision or agreement that does not comply with the above rules is deemed not to have been written.

PROCEDURE AT THE HEARING.

Article 1460 states that unless the parties have agreed upon procedural rules other than those applicable in State Courts, they must adhere to the broad outline rules for civil procedure. The Article also rules that tribunals have the power to order a party to produce any item of evidence if it holds it.

Article 1461 provides that all members of a tribunal must keep the record of the hearings unless the parties concerned have authorised a single arbitrator to do so.  This Article also states that third parties can be heard without being having been sworn.

Article 1462 lays down that once an arbitrator accepts his appointment, he must fulfil his role until completion and it further states that an arbitrator can only be dismissed on agreement by all parties. However, Article 1463 states that if grounds arise sufficient for dismissal which were not known at the time of his appointment, he may then be dismissed on those grounds and the State Courts are given residual power to deal with the dismissal.

Article 1464 deals with the end of tribunal and states that any one of three events can bring this about:

1. the dismissal, death or incapacity of one of the arbitrators,
2. the abstention or challenge of an arbitrator or
3. the allocated time to reach a decision expires.

Article 1465 contains provisions to deal with interruptions in the procedure before the tribunal.

Article 1466 surprisingly allows the tribunal to decide upon any challenge to its jurisdiction or to the extent of its jurisdiction.

Article 1467 empowers the tribunal to decide on any point of evidence.

Article 1468 covers the right of the tribunal to decide a final date after which submissions cannot be accepted.

---

AWARDS.

Article 1469 states that all deliberations within the tribunal are secret and, according to Article 1470, a simple majority is all that is required to make an award.

Under Article 1470, all facts and arguments presented by the parties must be set out in French awards and reasons for the tribunal’s decision must be given.

Article 1472 stipulates that the award must detail:

1. the names of the arbitrators
2. the date and place where the award is given
3. full details of the parties concerned, and
4. the names of any party’s Advocates or other representatives, if applicable.

Article 1473 states that all arbitrators must sign the award and in cases where a minority refuses, the majority must make mention of the refusal.

Article 1474 requires arbitrators to make decisions according to law. However, if the parties are in agreement, the arbitrators may make their decision as amiables compositeurs.

Article 1475 states that although the award is the termination of the arbitration, the tribunal is allowed to subsequently interpret it, correct any  errors or complete any omissions which may occur in the award.

Article 1476 stipulates that the award has the effect of a judgment on the dispute.

Enforcement of execution by the successful party is covered in Articles 1477, 1478, 1479 and 1480

 

APPEALS.

A basic principle in French arbitration is that awards cannot be quashed and can only be opposed by third parties. However, Article 1482 gives the right to appeal except where the parties have provided otherwise or  where the tribunal has been given the power to decide as an amiable compositeur.

In cases where an appeal has been made, Article 1483 endows the Court of Appeal with the same powers as were held by the original arbitral tribunal.

Articles 1484 to 1487 contain provisions covering possible nullity.

No appeal can be made against the Court Order of Exequatur itself but Article 1488 provides that appeal can be made against the award on which it is based.  However, under Article 1489 an appeal can be made against an Order refusing the Exequatur.

Article 1490 states that the rejection of any appeal or request for annulment has the effect of the Exequatur.

Under Article 1491, where revision of an award is sought, the same rules apply as for a Court Judgment.

INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION (both in France and elsewhere). Article 1492 defines International arbitration as arbitration which deals with questions of international trade.  There has been much debate and a large body of learned writing on this definition, including attempts to define the three essential elements of international, trade and what can be arbitrated. Current practice is that generally Courts and lawyers give the definition the widest possible interpretation.

Article 1493 stipulates that the agreement to arbitrate must include the appointment of the tribunal and provides that the parties to arbitration which is to take place in France may, in case of a problem arising in completing the arbitral tribunal, apply to the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris.

Article 1494 empowers the parties to make their own procedural rules. but also allows for decisions to be made based on a system of law or a set of arbitration rules.

According to Article 1495, where the international arbitration is subject to French law, the previous Headings of the Code shall apply, subject to the two previous Articles.

Article 1496 stipulates that the tribunal shall decide the case according to the rules of law chosen by the parties, or, if no choice was made, then according to the rules considered appropriate by the tribunal, but must, in all cases, take account of the commercial usages.

Article 1497 enables parties to give the tribunal the power to decide as an amiable compositeur.

EXECUTION of foreign or international awards in France:

Articles 1498 to 1500 provide for Exequatur for such awards unless they are against international public order.

With regard to appeals and other forms of recourse, Articles 1500 to 1507 states that the same rules which apply to French awards shall apply to foreign and international awards.

---