The case arose out of the alleged breach of an agency contract concluded in 2001 between Mr Fanck Soragna and Tualell, a Spanish company. The contract contained an arbitration clause referring any disputes resulting from its execution or interpretation to arbitration before the Court of Arbitration of the Official Chamber of Commerce, Industry and Navigation of Castellon, in Spain.

By letter dated 31 December 2008, Taulell terminated the contract. Mr Soragna responded by commencing litigation before the Commercial Court of Grenoble, seeking damages totaling over EUR 250,000. Taulell argued that the court had no jurisdiction over the dispute, citing the arbitration clause. In a decision dated 20 May 2011, the Commercial Court of Grenoble agreed, finding in Taulell's favour and awarding it costs.

Mr Soragna appealed against the decision before the Grenoble Court of Appeal, arguing that, pursuant to Spanish law:

The governing law of the contract was that of Spain, so Mr Soragna asked that the Court of Appeal find that these provisions rendered the arbitration clause void and that the Commercial Court should have accepted jurisdiction over his claim against Taulell.

The Court of Appeal held in Taulell's favour and, like the Commercial Court, awarded costs against Mr Soragna. The court noted that, pursuant to the principle of Kompetenz-kompetenz, it is for the arbitration tribunal to decide on any objections to its jurisdiction. In the absence of the manifest inapplicability or invalidity of the arbitration clause, a French court will therefore decline jurisdiction.

In addition, the court noted that the doctrine of separability provided that the validity of the arbitration clause was not to be judged according to the governing law of the contract. Mr Soragna could not, therefore, rely on Spanish law to invalidate the clause.

No appeal has yet been launched against the decision.

Aside from confirming the well-established pro-arbitration posture of French courts, the case confirms the expansive application of two well-known principles in France.

First, in applying the principle of Kompetenz-kompetenz, a French court faced with a dispute involving a contract containing an arbitration clause will decline jurisdiction unless a party can demonstrate the clause's manifest invalidity or inapplicability. This has been reaffirmed in France's new Arbitration Law (Decree of 13 January 2011, Article 1455).

Second, French law interprets the doctrine of separability in a particularly broad fashion and French courts have consistently found that the governing law of a contract does not govern the validity of an arbitration clause contained therein. Rather, the validity of an arbitration clause is determined pursuant to:

This is in contrast to some German and common law jurisdictions, which have applied an assumption that, in the absence of provisions to the contrary, parties to a contract are presumed to have intended that their arbitration clause be governed by the governing law of the contract.