Dispute and stage of review
On 23 March 2022 the French Court of Cassation’s First Civil Chamber decided appeal 17-17.981, ECLI:FR:CCASS:2022:C100338. A Latvian citizen had acquired the Kyrgyz bank later named Manas Bank. Following a change of government, the bank was placed under temporary administration and then sequestration. The investor initiated ad hoc arbitration under the Latvia–Kyrgyzstan bilateral investment treaty and the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules.
An award of 24 October 2014 ordered Kyrgyzstan to pay US$15.02 million in exchange for transfer of the investor’s shareholding. The Paris Court of Appeal annulled that award on 21 February 2017. Cassation proceedings reviewed that annulment; this was not Kyrgyz enforcement of a Russian commercial award.
The public-policy inquiry
Paragraphs 6–8 connect review to French Code of Civil Procedure Article 1520(5). The annulment court must assess whether recognition or enforcement is compatible with international public policy. The relevant principle in this case was combating money laundering.
The inquiry asked whether giving effect to the award would allow a party to benefit from the relevant activity. It was distinct from redetermining whether the Kyrgyz authorities acted lawfully under domestic law or breached the investment treaty’s fair-and-equitable-treatment standard.
Evidence and procedural safeguards
Paragraph 9 confirms that this inquiry is not confined to evidence presented to the arbitrators. The court is not bound by their findings, assessments or characterisation. Evidence placed before the court must nonetheless respect adversarial procedure and equality of arms.
Paragraphs 10–11 identify the circumstances examined: the investor’s links with former political leadership, the acquisition and supervision of the bank, its relationship with another bank, and the volume and structure of transactions. Serious, precise and consistent indications supported the international-public-policy conclusion. This was an assessment of an established combination of circumstances, not a rule that any unsupported allegation suffices.
Precise outcome and comparative use
The cassation appeal was dismissed, leaving the annulment intact. The Court of Cassation did not issue a new arbitral award or grant compensation to the investor. The judgment illustrates the depth of French review under a specific ground; it does not turn every legal error into a public-policy violation.
This was investment arbitration. Comparative discussion should identify the French provision, the type of arbitration and the review ground separately. Applicable criteria for contractual arbitration in another country require their own assessment. See setting aside and enforcement refusal and international enforcement.
General information. The applicable legal framework depends on the particular dispute, seat and enforcement country.