法国最高法院（French Cour de cassation）在2017年6月15日的裁决中裁定，承认审理范围书中仲裁庭组成的有效性，等于放弃（renunciation）请求确认仲裁庭缺乏独立性和公正性。（Cour de cassation, 1st Civil Chamber, 15 June 2017, No. 16-17.108）

在本案中，仲裁庭首席仲裁员没有在其声明中披露任何可能对其独立性和公正性产生合理怀疑的因素。然而，仲裁程序的一方当事人，即赤道几内亚共和国（The Republic of Equatorial Guinea）从对方当事人那里获悉，该主席几年前在一个仲裁程序中被选定，尽管该案与本案没有任何联系，但涉及对方当事人的母公司。尽管有这些信息，赤道几内亚共和国也没有立即对主席的独立性和公正性声明提出任何异议。此外，获悉主席的上述指定之后，在所签署的审理范围书中承认了仲裁庭组成的有效性。赤道几内亚共和国认为某程序性决定不公正时，才首次提出主席缺乏独立性和公正性。赤道几内亚共和国随后以同样的理由请求撤销仲裁裁决。

上诉法院驳回了这一观点，最高法院维持上诉法院的裁定。实际上，根据最高法院的推理，尽管对方当事人提供了信息（这些信息也很容易公开获得），赤道几内亚共和国承认审理范围书中仲裁庭组成的效力，并未对仲裁员提出异议。因此，认定赤道几内亚共和国放弃了以缺乏独立性和公正性为由提出任何异议的权利，因此驳回以仲裁庭组成无效为由撤销仲裁裁决的动议。

英文部分

France: Terms of reference – a key document to which the parties to an arbitration procedure must pay particular attention

By Eric Borysewicz and Karim Boulmelh

In a decision dated 15 June 2017, the French Cour de cassation held that an acknowledgment of the validity of the arbitral tribunal’s constitution in the terms of reference amounts to a renunciation to invoke the tribunal’s lack of independence and impartiality.[1]

In this case, the chair of the tribunal did not disclose any element in his declaration likely to raise reasonable doubt as to his independence and impartiality. However, one of the parties to the arbitration proceedings, the Republic of Equatorial Guinea, was informed by the opposite party that the chair was appointed several years ago in an arbitration procedure, without any link to the present one, but involving the opponent’s parent company. Despite this information, the Republic of Equatorial Guinea did not put forward any objection to the declaration of independence and impartiality of the chair. Moreover, it recognized the validity of the arbitral tribunal’s constitution in the terms of reference signed after having been informed of the chair’s above-mentioned designation. It was only during a procedural ruling, which seemed partial in the Republic of Equatorial Guinea’s eyes, that the latter decided to invoke for the first time the lack of independence and impartiality of the chair. It then filed a request to set aside the arbitral award on the same grounds.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the argument and the Cour de cassation confirmed this decision. Indeed, and according to the Cour de cassation’s reasoning, the Republic of Equatorial Guinea, notwithstanding the information given by the opposite party (information that was also easily and publicly accessible), acknowledged the valid constitution of the arbitral tribunal in the terms of reference and put forward no objection against the arbitrators. Therefore, the Republic of Equatorial Guinea was found to have waived its right to raise any argument based on lack of independence and impartiality, leading to a dismissal of its action to set aside the arbitral award on the ground of the invalidity of the arbitral tribunal’s constitution.

[1] Cour de cassation, 1st Civil Chamber, 15 June 2017, No. 16-17.108