The conformity of the arbitrator in his assignment

Articles 1492 and 1520 of the French Code of Civil Procedure (applying to domestic and international arbitration respectively) set out the possible grounds for setting aside a domestic or international arbitral award or denying its enforcement. The third of these grounds states that a challenge may be initiated when the arbitral tribunal ruled without complying with the mandate conferred upon it. The notion of mandate - translation of the French mission - is vague, rendering the limits of this ground unclear. This poses a risk of significant increase in the number of challenges of awards and results in legal uncertainty. It might also hamper the efficiency of French arbitration law, especially in the context of a strong competition among seats of arbitration. The analysis of the notion of mission provides insight into the particular mandate referred to Under Articles 1492 and 1520, item 3, and can be defined as the contractual elements which are directly involved in the performance of the arbitral jurisdictional task. This definition sets out the two criteria - i.e. the contractual elements and the direct involvement in the performance of the arbitral jurisdictional task - that allow listing the breaches that could give rise to an annulment under this third ground relating to the arbitrator's mission. Applying both criteria clarifies the scope of this ground and strengthens its relevance. While ruling on a challenge that the arbitral tribunal breached its mission, the annulment judge follows the same rational approach, both when analyzing the breach and when considering a possible annulment. The work undertaken in this thesis highlights the gradual restriction of the scope of this third ground relating to the arbitrator's mission. Every stage of our study- the definition of the mission, the list of grounds covered by this third ground, the judge's control and the potential annulment of the award - demonstrates that a clear, coherent and rational understanding of the third ground is possible. Such an understanding prevents this ground from being construed in an excessively broad sense, as its unclear wording may have suggested. The conducted statistical survey corroborates these theoretical results. All these ideas confirm that the third ground is a relevant and legitimate one.