## Facts

- A Moroccan company, Chérifienne des Pétroles (SCP), contracted with Mannesmann entities (including Mannesmann Industria Iberica and Mannesmann Anlagenbau) under an agreement containing an ICC arbitration clause designating Paris as the seat.
- A dispute arose, and SCP commenced ICC arbitration and appointed its party-appointed arbitrator.
- The Mannesmann entities appointed their arbitrator.
- The ICC Court appointed a Greek national (M.B.) as presiding arbitrator in October 1990.
- Before the appointment, SCP told the ICC it opposed a “European” presiding arbitrator because the Mannesmann entities were headquartered in Europe.
- After the ICC appointment, SCP filed an action before the Paris Tribunal de grande instance (TGI), invoking provisions of the French New Code of Civil Procedure on judicial support in arbitration, seeking to nullify/disregard the ICC appointment and compel appointment of a non-European chair.
- The Mannesmann entities opposed court intervention, contending the tribunal had been properly constituted under the ICC Rules and the parties’ agreement.

## Issues

1. Whether a French court could review and override the ICC Court’s appointment of a presiding arbitrator in an ongoing ICC arbitration seated in Paris.
2. Whether SCP’s communications and asserted “common intent” imposed a binding nationality constraint on the ICC’s appointment discretion absent an express mutual agreement.
3. Whether judicial assistance provisions in French arbitration law permit pre-award intervention when the agreed appointment mechanism has functioned as designed.

## Decision

- The TGI refused to interfere with the ICC Court’s appointment of the presiding arbitrator.
- The court treated the arbitral tribunal as properly constituted pursuant to the arbitration agreement and ICC Rules.
- The court rejected the contention that SCP’s unilateral nationality preference could invalidate the ICC appointment or justify substituting a different presiding arbitrator.
- SCP’s requested relief was dismissed, and the tribunal remained constituted with M.B. as chair.

## Legal Principles

- When parties choose institutional arbitration rules that allocate appointment authority to an arbitral institution, institutional appointments made in conformity with those rules are generally not subject to substitution by courts.
- Judicial support mechanisms for tribunal constitution are directed to situations where the agreed appointment process fails or becomes inoperative, not to re-litigation of discretionary institutional choices after a valid constitution.
- “Contractual intent” limiting tribunal composition must be mutual and sufficiently expressed in the arbitration agreement or a clear shared arrangement; a unilateral condition communicated to the institution does not bind the other party or curtail the institution’s delegated discretion.
- Objections based on arbitrator nationality, without an agreed nationality restriction, do not alone warrant court intervention where independence and impartiality remain the controlling standards.

## Conclusion

The court declined pre-award intervention in an ICC tribunal’s constitution, holding that the ICC’s appointment of the presiding arbitrator stood because the parties had accepted the ICC Rules’ appointment mechanism and had not mutually agreed to any nationality limitation on the chair.


Chérifienne des Pétroles v. Mannesmann Industria Iberica, 1996 Rev. arb. 503 (Trib. gr. inst. Paris 1991)