|Help

Cour de cassation, First Civil Chamber, 20 October 2010, Prodim v Spouses X - French International Arbitration Law Reports: 2010

Author(s): 
Thomas Clay
Philippe Pinsolle
Thomas Voisin
Suhaib Al-Ali
Page Count: 
4 pages
Media Description: 
1 PDF Download
Published: 
February, 2016
Author Detail: 

 About the Editors

 
Thomas Clay is Professor in International Arbitration Law in Versailles
University, Director of its LLM in International Arbitration in
collaboration with the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), the only
French-language program in international arbitration. He's also Vice-
President of the University, managing partner of Clay Arbitration Law
Firm, and former Dean of the Law School. Member of the French
Arbitration Committee and of the International Arbitration Institute and
other institutions, Professor Clay is the author of various books and articles
on arbitration, including "The Arbitrator", a treatise on the duties and
obligations of arbitrators, and "Code de" arbitrage commenté”, a
restatement of the French law. He writes a regular column, Arbitration
Law, in the weekly legal journal Dalloz. He also participates in numerous
conferences throughout the world on international arbitration and has an
extensive practice in arbitration, as arbitrator or counsel, in French,
Spanish, English and Italian, collaborating with the ICC, other French
institutions, the Milan Arbitration Court, and in Africa and South America.
Professor Clay is also a member of the Jurisdiction of Professional Soccer
League and Arbitrator in the French Sport Arbitration Chamber. He was
appointed by France to serve as co-arbitrator in the first ICSID Arbitration
against that country.
 
Philippe Pinsolle is the Managing Partner of the Paris Office at Quinn
Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, and specializes in international arbitration.
He has been involved, as counsel or arbitrator, in more than two hundred
and fifty international arbitrations, both institutional (ICC, ICSID, LCIA,
SCC, AFA, Swiss Rules, etc.) and ad hoc, concerning such activities as
investment, oil and gas, energy, telecom or the defense industry. Mr.
Pinsolle is a member of the Paris Bar and of the Bar of England & Wales
(Gray's Inn). He is a lecturer on international arbitration at the Universities
of Aix-Marseille III, Versailles-St Quentin and Paris 12. Mr. Pinsolle is the
former President of the International Arbitration commission of the Union
Internationale des Avocats (UIA) and a cofounder of the Young
Arbitration Practitioners (YAP). He is the author of numerous articles and
case-notes on international arbitration and holds a J.D. degree from the
University Pantheon-Assas (Paris II), a M.Jur. from Oxford University,
Hertford College, and an MBA degree from Essec.
 
Thomas Voisin is a Partner in the Paris office of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart
& Sullivan. He has represented clients in a number of international
arbitrations, both ad hoc (including under the UNCITRAL Rules) and
under the rules of major arbitration centers (ICC, ICSID, LCIA, SCC,
AFA, etc.), with particular focus on investment, energy, and commercial
disputes. His experience includes international arbitrations in the oil &
gas, power, transportation, mining, aviation and chemical sectors. He
graduated from the University Pantheon-Assas (Paris II) and holds an
M.Jur. from Oxford University.
 
Suhaib Al-Ali is an Associate in the Paris office of Quinn Emanuel
Urquhart & Sullivan. He has intervened on behalf of both States and
Investors before ICSID and ad hoc tribunals, as well as commercial
Claimants and Respondents before the ICC, LCIA, ECA, and the Franco-
German Chamber of Commerce and Industry. He has degrees from
King's College London, Paris-I Pantheon-Sorbonne, and the University of
Chicago. He is a member of the New York Bar.

PDF536.64 KB

$40.00
Description: 

 Originally From:

French International Arbitration Law Reports: 2010

 

 

Preview Page

 

ORIGINAL

Sur le moyen unique pris en sa première branche ;

Vu l’article 1484-2° du code de procédure civile, ensemble l’article 1452, alinéa 2, du même code ;

Attendu qu’il résulte du premier de ces textes que le recours en annulation contre la 
sentence est ouvert si le tribunal arbitral a été irrégulièrement composé et du second que 
l’arbitre qui suppose en sa personne une cause de récusation doit en informer les parties et ne 
peut, dans ce cas, accepter sa mission qu’avec leur accord ;

Attendu que les époux X... ont conclu, le
8 mars 1994, un contrat de franchise pour exploiter un magasin sous l’enseigne Shopi ; que le même 
jour ils ont signé un contrat d’approvisionnement avec la société Prodim, aux droits de laquelle se 
trouve la société Logidis ; que les époux X... ont résilié les deux contrats et mis en oeuvre la 
procédure d’arbitrage qui y était prévue ; que les sociétés Prodim et Logidis ont notamment 
désigné M. Z... en qualité d’arbitre ; que par sentence du
29 juillet 2002, les époux X... ont été condamnés à payer diverses sommes à la société Logidis ; 
que leur recours en annulation a été rejeté par un arrêt de la cour d’appel de Douai du 24 juin 
2004 cassé par un arrêt du 10 mai 2006 (Civ. 1,
10 mai 2006, pourvoi n° 04 18.653) ;

Attendu que, pour dire que M. Z... n’avait pas manqué d’impartialité et rejeter le

TRANSLATION

On the first prong of the sole argument;


In light of article 1482-2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as well as article 1452, para. 2, of the 
same code;

Whereas the first of these articles provides that annulment procedure against the award is 
available if the arbitral tribunal is unlawfully constituted, and the second of these articles 
provides that the arbitrator supposing in his person a ground for challenge must inform the parties 
and may not, in this case, accept an appointment without their consent;

Whereas the spouses X… concluded, on 8
March 1994, a franchise agreement in order to run a shop under the name Shopi; that on the same day 
they signed a supply contract with the company Prodim, represented by the company Logidis; the 
spouses X… terminated both contracts and triggered arbitration proceedings they provided for; 
the companies Prodim and Logidis notably nominated M. Z… as arbitrator; by an award rendered on 
29July 2002, the spouses X… were ordered to pay various amounts to the company Logidis; the annulment 
action they brought was dismissed by a decision of the Douai Court of Appeal on 24 June
2004 quashed by a decision of 10 May
2006 (Civ. 1, 10 May 2006, petition No.
04 18.653);

Whereas in order to rule that M. Z... was not impartial and dismiss the annulment