In <span class="news-text_italic-underline">Astaris and Others v Republic of Venezuela and Instituto de Ferrocarriles del Estado (RG No 23/11499)</span>, the Paris Court of Appeal dismissed an application to set aside an ICC arbitral award that had declined jurisdiction. The court held that the Applicants’ shift in their legal argument concerning the existence of an arbitration agreement violated Article 1466 of the French Code of Civil Procedure (“<span class="news-text_medium">CCP</span>”).
The dispute stemmed from six contracts entered into between three Italian companies (the “<span class="news-text_medium">Claimants</span>”) and Instituto de Ferrocarriles del Estado (“<span class="news-text_medium">IFE</span>”), a Venezuelan public entity, relating to the construction of Venezuela’s railway network. These contracts were concluded after the signing of the Italy - Venezuela Treaty on Economic Cooperation (the “<span class="news-text_medium">Treaty</span>”), which by Article XV provided for ICC arbitration in the event of disputes between Italian and Venezuelan companies concerning the implementation of the Treaty.
In 2019, the Claimants initiated ICC arbitration pursuant to Article XV, alleging that Venezuela and IFE had obstructed the performance of the contracts. The arbitral tribunal ultimately found that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the claims. The Claimants then applied to the Paris Court of Appeal seeking annulment of the award.
Before the Court, the Claimants argued that the arbitral tribunal erred in refusing to assert jurisdiction under Article XV, contending that the Article was not a unilateral offer of arbitration by Venezuela. Instead, they claimed that the relevant arbitration agreement was contained within the individual contracts themselves. Venezuela and IFE objected, arguing that the application was inadmissible because the Claimants’ new position contradicted the one taken during the arbitration proceedings, where they had relied exclusively on Article XV. The Respondents further submitted that the Claimants were improperly reframing the matter as a commercial arbitration rather than a treaty-based one.
The Court first rejected the Respondents’ estoppel argument, holding that the change in position had not caused prejudice, a necessary element for estoppel under French law. However, it proceeded to consider whether the new arguments were admissible under Article 1466 CCP, which bars parties from raising grounds that were not presented to the arbitral tribunal and treats such omissions as a waiver. The Court found that the Claimants’ new position represented a significant departure from their earlier submissions and therefore fell within the scope of Article 1466.
Consequently, the Court held the new jurisdictional arguments inadmissible and dismissed the annulment request. The ICC award declining jurisdiction was thus formally recognised and the Claimants were ordered to pay costs and legal fees to Venezuela and IFE.
By applying Article 1466 CCP to preclude new jurisdictional arguments not previously advanced before the arbitral tribunal, the Paris Court of Appeal underscored the importance of procedural coherence and the binding nature of waiver in French arbitration law — even in matters of jurisdiction, which are typically subject to broad judicial scrutiny in annulment proceedings.
<span class="news-text_medium">Case Reference:</span> <span class="news-text_italic-underline">Astaris and Others v Republic of Venezuela and Instituto de Ferrocarriles del Estado (RG No 23/11499)</span>, Paris Court of Appeal, 30 September 2025 (decision available in French).
