In <span class="news-text_italic-underline">The Government of Georgia v Enka Renewables LLC (RG No 25/01855)</span>, the Paris Court of Appeal issued a single order granting exequatur of an ICC arbitral award and its addendum, while at the same time staying their enforcement.
The dispute arose from an agreement between Enka Renewables LLC, a Georgian project company and subsidiary of the Turkish Enka group, and the Government of Georgia concerning a hydroelectric power project. The agreement provided for dispute resolution by ICC arbitration. Following Enka’s termination of the agreement, a dispute emerged regarding the validity of the termination, Enka’s entitlement to compensation and the valuation of assets transferred to the Georgian state. Enka commenced ICC arbitration seated in Paris.
The arbitral tribunal issued an award finding that Enka had lawfully terminated the agreement and ordering Georgia to pay more than USD 360 million, plus interest, covering the value of the assets, a tax gross-up and costs. An addendum was subsequently issued to correct clerical errors in the award.
Georgia applied to set aside both the award and the addendum. In parallel, Enka sought of the award and addendum before the French courts. Georgia opposed the grant of exequatur and requested a stay of enforcement pending the outcome of the annulment proceedings.
The Court of Appeal granted exequatur pursuant to Article 1514 of the <span class="news-text_italic-underline">French Code of Civil Procedure</span>, which provides that recognition and enforcement may be refused only if the award is manifestly contrary to international public policy. The court reaffirmed that such a characteristic must be apparent from the award itself and cannot be inferred from the seriousness of the grounds relied upon in annulment proceedings. It held that Georgia’s allegation of a due process violation would require an examination of the merits of the award, which exceeded the limited scope of review at the exequatur stage.
However, the Court of Appeal ordered a stay of enforcement under Article 1526 of the <span class="news-text_italic-underline">French Code of Civil Procedure</span>. While annulment proceedings do not automatically suspend enforcement under French law, the court recalled that a stay may be granted where enforcement would cause serious prejudice to a party’s rights. The court emphasised that this assessment must be conducted strictly in order to preserve the principle that annulment proceedings are non-suspensive.
In assessing the risk of serious prejudice, the court noted that by June 2025 the amounts due under the award exceeded USD 400 million. This sum represented nearly 60% of Georgia’s national defence budget and approximately 250% of the budget of its Ministry of Justice. The court concluded that immediate enforcement would seriously impair Georgia’s ability to carry out essential public functions. It also observed that Enka had no ongoing activities and had provided no evidence of its solvency, increasing the risk of irreparable prejudice to Georgia. The court rejected the proposal to place the sums in escrow, finding that this would be equivalent to immediate enforcement.
The decision demonstrates that, while French courts apply a narrow and pro-enforcement approach when granting exequatur, they may nevertheless stay enforcement in exceptional circumstances, particularly where enforcement against a sovereign state risks serious disruption to public functions.
<span class="news-text_medium">Case:</span> <span class="news-text_italic-underline">The Government of Georgia v Enka Renewables LLC (RG No 25/01855)</span>, Paris Court of Appeal, 9 December 2025 (judgment available in French).
