In <span class="news-text_italic-underline">Stratiotis v Brazil (Appeal No 24/10879)</span>, the pre-trial magistrate (conseiller de la mise en état) of the Paris Court of Appeal ruled that she lacked jurisdiction to determine the admissibility of one of Brazil’s grounds for annulment raised against an exequatur order. The contested ground alleged that the exequatur judge had exceeded his powers. As the objection concerned the substance of the appeal rather than the procedural conduct of the appeal, the matter was referred to the full appellate bench.
The decision was rendered in the context of Brazil’s appeal against an exequatur order declaring enforceable in France a partial arbitral award issued in a São Paulo–seated arbitration conducted under the rules of the Câmara de Arbitragem do Mercado (“<span class="news-text_medium">CAM</span>”).
The arbitration had been initiated by two minority shareholders of Petrobras, Mr Stratiotis and the MUDES foundation, pursuant to the arbitration clause contained in the company’s bylaws. The claimants brought derivative claims against Brazil, alleging that the Brazillian State had caused significant harm to Petrobras by appointing directors implicated in the corruption exposed by the “Lava Jato” scandal. The proceedings were consolidated and in a partial award issued in 2020, the arbitral tribunal upheld its jurisdiction over the dispute.
Following the issuance of an exequatur order in Paris in 2023, Mr Stratiotis raised a procedural incident before the pre-trial magistrate, seeking a declaration that one of Brazil’s annulment grounds was inadmissible. The objection was based on the contention that the exequatur judge had acted in excess of his powers.
The magistrate recalled that, pursuant to Article 1527 of the <span class="news-text_italic-underline">French Code of Civil Procedure</span>, appeals against exequatur orders are governed by the ordinary rules of appellate procedure. She further noted that Articles 789 and 907 of the Code confer, in principle, exclusive jurisdiction on the pre-trial judge to rule on objections of inadmissibility.
However, relying on established case law of the French Court of Cassation (notably decisions of 3 June 2021, <span class="news-text_italic-underline">No 21-70.006</span> and 11 October 2022, <span class="news-text_italic-underline">No 22-70.010</span>), the magistrate emphasised that this jurisdiction is limited to inadmissibility objections relating strictly to the appeal procedure. Objections that concern the appeal itself, or which would call into question determinations made on the merits at first instance, fall within the competence of the appellate bench.
In the present case, the magistrate found that the contested objection related to the alleged excess of power exercised by the exequatur judge and sought the annulment of the order under appeal. As such, the objection did not concern the procedural admissibility of the appeal, but rather the subject matter of the appeal and the scope of the court’s review.
On that basis, the magistrate held that she lacked jurisdiction to rule on the admissibility of the objection and referred the matter to the full panel of the Paris Court of Appeal. The ruling is procedural in nature and does not address the merits of Brazil’s appeal against the exequatur order, which will be considered by the Court of Appeal at a later stage.
<span class="news-text_medium">Case:</span> <span class="news-text_italic-underline">Stratiotis v Brazil (Appeal No 24/10879)</span>, Paris Court of Appeal, 8 January 2026 (decision available in French).
