Procedural Background

This judgment of the Paris Court of Appeal, International Commercial Chamber, dated 26 May 2026, rules on an appeal (déféré) brought by the Republic of Albania. The appeal challenged a procedural order of 16 September 2025, which had declared inadmissible Albania's application to set aside a 24 April 2019 ICSID arbitral award rendered against it. The underlying dispute involved claims by Italian investors (Hydro S.R.L. and others) under the Albania-Italy Bilateral Investment Treaty.

Following the award, Albania unsuccessfully pursued annulment and revision remedies within the ICSID framework. A second revision application, based on newly discovered evidence of alleged fraud, was refused registration by the ICSID Secretary-General as time-barred under ICSID Arbitration Rule 50(3). Consequently, Albania initiated annulment proceedings before the French courts, arguing that Paris, having been designated as the 'place of the proceeding' in the arbitration, was the proper forum.

Jurisdictional Challenge and Parties' Submissions

The central issue before the Court was whether it possessed jurisdiction to hear an application to annul an ICSID award. Albania argued that the refusal by the ICSID Secretary-General to register its second revision application constituted a denial of justice. It contended that this denial of justice, in conjunction with fundamental rights of access to a court under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), justified the intervention of French courts. Albania asserted that the designation of Paris as the 'place of the proceeding' created a sufficient jurisdictional nexus, equating it to the legal 'seat' of the arbitration for the purposes of French procedural law.

The investors countered that the Washington Convention establishes a self-contained and exclusive legal regime for the review of ICSID awards, as stipulated in Articles 53 and 54. They argued that this framework creates a 'delocalized' system, precluding any form of review or annulment by national courts. The investors maintained that the 'place of the proceeding' is a purely logistical designation without the legal consequences of a formal arbitral 'seat' and that France, as a signatory to the Convention, is bound to recognize this autonomous system and abstain from exercising supervisory jurisdiction.

The Court's Analysis and Decision

The Court of Appeal affirmed the inadmissibility of Albania's annulment application, holding that it lacked jurisdiction. The Court's reasoning was grounded in the autonomous nature of the ICSID system. It held that the Washington Convention establishes a delocalized regime, independent of any national legal order, with its own exclusive mechanisms for recourse (annulment and revision). By ratifying the Convention, contracting states, including France, have accepted this system and renounced the jurisdiction of their own courts to review ICSID awards.

The Court endorsed the critical distinction between the legal 'seat' of an arbitration, which confers supervisory jurisdiction on national courts, and the physical 'place of the proceeding', which is merely a matter of practical organization. It found that ICSID arbitrations have no legal seat, and the choice of Paris for hearings did not create a jurisdictional link to the French legal system. The Court rejected Albania's denial of justice argument, reasoning that it could not create an *ex nihilo* basis for jurisdiction where the governing treaty expressly excludes it. To conduct a review of the ICSID process for compliance with the ECHR would, in the Court's view, contravene France's own international obligations under the Washington Convention. Accordingly, the Court dismissed Albania's appeal and confirmed the order declaring the annulment action inadmissible.