In Republic of Equatorial Guinea (the Republic) v Fitzpatrick Equatorial Guinea, de Ly, Owen and Leboulanger (Fitzpatrick), TGI Paris, 29/03/2010, 10-52825, Fitzpatrick commenced ICC arbitration proceedings to resolve a dispute that arose under a contract for the construction of a highway. The seat of the arbitration was Paris.

The arbitral tribunal first rendered a partial award rejecting the Republic's challenge to the tribunal's jurisdiction. The arbitrators then proceeded to address the merits of the dispute. The Republic challenged the partial award on jurisdiction before the Paris Court of Appeal and, accordingly, made an application before the arbitral tribunal to stay the arbitration proceedings. After the arbitral tribunal rejected this application, the Republic initiated summary proceedings before the Tribunal de Grande Instance (the Paris court of first instance), requesting an injunction enjoining the arbitrators from continuing the arbitration until the Court of Appeal rendered its decision.

These summary proceedings were made pursuant to Article 809 of the French Code of Civil Procedure, which provides that:

With respect to the jurisdictional issue, the Tribunal de Grande Instance found that, once the arbitral tribunal is formed, only the arbitrators have the power to deal with their own jurisdiction. The Tribunal de Grande Instance therefore rejected the injunction application. It found that, because jurisdictional issues fall outside of the French state courts' jurisdiction, it could not order the arbitrators to stay the proceedings. In other words, the court found that French courts are not authorised to interfere with arbitral proceedings and thus cannot issue injunctions against arbitral tribunals, even those sitting in Paris. The judge specified that French judges can grant orders pursuant to Article 809 of the French Code of Civil Procedure only to secure the enforcement of an arbitral award.

In holding that French judges will reject any application to stay or disrupt arbitration proceedings, this decision is another demonstration of the French courts' favourable predisposition towards arbitration. It follows a trend of two other recent French cases. First, in SA Elf Aquitaine and Total v Mattei, Lai. Kamara and Reiner, the Tribunal de Grande Instance of Paris affirmed that French judges are not authorised under any circumstances to interfere with arbitral proceedings. Second, in In Zone Brands, the Cour de Cassation (Supreme Court) held that anti-suit injunctions are not against public international order. In sum, French judges may only intervene in support of arbitration.