In Nuovo Pignone v Société Girondine de Cogénération (SOGICO) and AIG Europe, the French Supreme Court upheld a decision of the Versailles Court of Appeal, declining jurisdiction to hear the matter.

This case concerned a multi-party dispute involving several companies in an energy and infrastructure operation. A gas turbine was manufactured by Nuovo Pignone (an Italian manufacturer) and sold to General Electric Company (GEC) (an American company) pursuant to an agreement which contained an ICC arbitration clause. GEC subsequently sold the turbine to Thomassen Stewart & Stevenson BV (TSS) (a Dutch company), who on-sold it to SOGICO (a French company). When problems with the turbine arose, SOGICO and its insurer, AIG, brought a claim against TSS, GEC and Nuovo Pignone in the French commercial court.

Nuovo Pignone objected to the jurisdiction of the French Court. It argued that any claim against it should be referred to arbitration under the arbitration agreement in its contract with GEC. Pursuant to Article 1458 of the French Code of Civil Procedure, courts must refuse jurisdiction unless the arbitration agreement is manifestly inapplicable. The commercial court determined that the arbitration agreement was manifestly inapplicable because SOGICO was not a party the contract. Nuovo Pignone brought a contredit (a challenge to the lower court's decision to assume jurisdiction, which prevents the lower court from proceeding to hear the merits of the dispute until the challenge is determined) before the Versailles Court of Appeal.

On 3 April 2008, the Versailles Court of Appeal reversed the commercial court's decision. Before the Court of Appeal, SOGICO and AIG argued that the generator was built by GEC, not Nuovo Pignone, and that the contract between GEC and Nuovo Pignone was executed purely for tax reasons. The Court of Appeal rejected these arguments and held that, in light of the questions raised concerning the roles of the various parties in the transaction, the arbitration agreement was not manifestly inapplicable. It therefore declined jurisdiction.

AIG appealed to the French Supreme Court. It argued that the Court of Appeal had failed to properly address the commercial court decision and had thereby violated the Code of Civil Procedure.

The French Supreme Court rejected both arguments, upholding the decision of the Court of Appeal and declining jurisdiction. It held that it would be necessary to consider and interpret the legal situation of each of the parties to the dispute in order to decide whether the arbitration agreement was applicable. The arbitration agreement could not, therefore, be said to be manifestly inapplicable.

This decision confirms the French courts' reluctance to assume jurisdiction where there is an arbitration agreement, unless that agreement is manifestly inapplicable. In practice, the French courts set a high bar, and the mere fact that there might be some uncertainty as to whether a dispute falls within the scope of a given agreement is insufficient to establish "manifest" inapplicability.