The Paris Court of First Instance dismissed an application by Libya’s National Oil Corporation (“<span class="news-text_medium">NOC</span>”) to set aside seizures of its assets, permitting Al-Kharafi & Sons (“<span class="news-text_medium">AKS</span>”) to maintain enforcement measures in respect of a 2013 ICC award against Libya.
In July 2025, AKS seized NOC’s shareholder rights and, through a garnishee seizure (saisie-attribution), a claim that NOC held against a third party. The measures sought recovery of approximately EUR844 million under the award.
NOC challenged the seizures in November 2025, alleging procedural defects and expiry of the enforcement limitation period. Alternatively, it sought their revocation on the basis it was not an emanation of the Libyan state.
NOC alleged that the enforcement documents failed to identify the applicable default interest rate, incorrectly reproduced article L.211-3 of the Code of Civil Enforcement Procedures in the garnishment deed and that the order authorising the seizure had not been communicated to the garnishee.
The court rejected the first two objections because NOC had not demonstrated prejudice, as required by Article 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It found the third objection unfounded.
NOC argued that enforcement of the 2013 exequatur order was barred by the ten-year limitation period under Article L.111-4 of the Enforcement Code. The court disagreed. A garnishee seizure carried out in 2020 against amounts owed by Libya to Sorelec had interrupted the limitation period under Article 2244 of the Civil Code, extending it until December 2030. For the same reason, the court rejected NOC’s wider application to annul all enforcement measures taken under the 2013 order.
Applying French Court of Cassation precedent, the court held NOC was an emanation of the Libyan state. Its separate legal personality did not prevent its assets from being seized to satisfy a judgment against Libya.
The court identified a lack of independence in two respects:
The ruling was consistent with the approach adopted by French courts, including in several cases concerning national oil companies.
The court further held that the seized assets met the requirements of Article L.111-1-2 of the Enforcement Code, being commercial in nature and connected to Libya. It declared NOC’s alternative application for a stay inadmissible and ordered NOC to bear the costs and pay AKS EUR6,000.
The decision illustrates the significance of functional and patrimonial independence when determining whether a state-owned company’s assets may be used to satisfy an award against the state. Separate legal personality alone did not protect NOC’s assets from enforcement.
