La Société Chantiers de l'Atlantique S.A (CAT) and La Société Gaz Transport et Technigaz (GTT), both French companies, entered into a license agreement for the construction of three methane tankers. The agreement contained an arbitration clause that provided for ICC arbitration in London. A number of technical difficulties were encountered and CAT commenced arbitration proceedings against GTT.

The arbitral tribunal rejected CAT's claim and rendered an award in favour of GTT. After exequatur was granted by the President of the Tribunal de Grande Instance of Paris, CAT filed criminal proceedings against GTT alleging fraud and forgery of various documents produced during the arbitration. These proceedings were lodged in France.

CAT subsequently challenged the enforcement of the arbitral award before the Paris Court of Appeal arguing that the arbitral tribunal had ruled outside the scope of its assignment because it failed to comply with Article 25 of the ICC Rules. This article provides that the arbitrators shall state the reasons upon which their decision is based. In particular, CAT directed the Court to five paragraphs of the award that started with the following sentence: "After analysis of the position of the parties and underlying documents, the Arbitral Tribunal considers (…)".

CAT also requested a stay of enforcement of the award pending the conclusion of the criminal proceedings before the French authorities, arguing that immediate enforcement of the award would be against public international policy because the criminal proceedings concerned the same facts and parties as the arbitration.

The Court, rejecting CAT's challenge to the enforcement of the tribunal's award, ruled that the tribunal had complied with Article 25 of the ICC Rules in full. The five paragraphs in question were held to be a conclusion preceded by a strict analysis of the parties' positions in an award that amounted to 247 pages and 1417 paragraphs.

Further, the Court rejected CAT's application for stay of enforcement of the award, stating that pursuant to Article 4 of the French Code of Criminal Procedure, the filing of a criminal case does not automatically suspend proceedings before the civil courts even in circumstances where the result of a criminal case may directly or indirectly influence the civil proceedings. The Court held that refusing to stay the enforcement of the award was not against public international policy.

This decision confirms that, although French judges must ensure that arbitrators have stated the reasons upon which they based their decision, they do not have the power to review the merits of arbitral awards.

It is also interesting to note that before Article 4 of French Code of Criminal Procedure was modified in 2007, the principle under French law was that civil proceedings are suspended until a final decision is rendered on the merits of related criminal proceedings. Since the enactment of a new legislation in 2007, Article 4 of the French Code of Criminal Procedure was modified and civil proceedings are not automatically suspended, even if the result of the criminal proceedings may directly or indirectly influence the civil proceedings.