The 2012 revision of the ICC Rules of Arbitration came into force on 1 January 2012 (see Legal update, ICC Rules of Arbitration 2012 launched). The revision codified pre-existing ICC practice with respect to several issues, including applications for joinder (Article 7) and consolidation (Article 10), and other issues arising out of complex disputes involving multiple parties (Article 8) and multiple contracts (Article 9).

The 2012 revision also included two important structural changes:

The ICC has since published its Secretariat's Guide, with a view to providing further guidance to practitioners regarding the application of the Rules, and the decision-making processes within the ICC.

In March 2012, the Supreme Court (Cour de Cassation) quashed a decision of the Paris Court of Appeal which had upheld the exequatur (order for enforcement) granted to an award rendered in 2004 under the auspices of the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC) (Seribo c. La Société Hainan YangpuXindadaoIndustrial Co/Ltd, Cour de Cassation, Chambre Civile, Section 1, no. 11/10347, discussed in Legal update, French Supreme Court quashes decision related to multi-tiered arbitration clause).

The arbitral clause at issue in this case called for negotiation, followed by mediation and/or arbitration under the CIETAC Rules, with a seat in Beijing, followed (at the option of either party) by ICC arbitration seated in Paris. (The English and Chinese versions of the clause were not entirely consistent as to whether the CIETAC proceedings were mediation, arbitration, or a hybrid "med-arb" procedure.) A dispute arising under the contract was submitted to CIETAC, which issued an award in 2004. This award was then granted exequatur by the court of first instance in Paris (le Tribunal de grande instance) in April 2008. That decision was appealed to the Paris Court of Appeal by Seribo.

The Court of Appeal rejected Seribo's arguments that enforcement of the Beijing award would be contrary to public policy. However, the Supreme Court found that the Court of Appeal had failed to address one of Seribo's arguments, that in rendering the award, CIETAC had not acted as an arbitrator. The Supreme Court referred the dispute back to the Paris Court of Appeal in order to consider this argument. The Court of Appeal's decision is expected in 2013, see Anticipated developments in 2013 below).

A decision is expected in the SA J & P Avax v SociétéTecnimont SPA dispute. The dispute arises out of an ICC arbitration initiated in 2002. A partial award rendered in that case was set aside by the Paris Court of Appeal in February 2009. The Court of Appeal found that the chairman of the tribunal's failure to disclose previous dealings between the firm in which he was of counsel and a subsidiary of one of the parties raised doubts as to his impartiality. The French Supreme Court quashed the decision, on the grounds that the Court of Appeal had erred in its factual findings with respect to the timing of the discovery of the alleged conflict of interest. The Supreme Court referred the dispute to the Reims Court of Appeal, which once again set aside the award in its decision of 2 November 2011 (see Legal update, Reims Court of Appeal sets aside ICC award for chairman's lack of independence).

The decision of the Reims Court of Appeal was appealed to the Supreme Court. It is anticipated that the Supreme Court's decision will address the extent of an arbitrator's obligation to disclose potential conflicts of interest, as well as the extent to which an arbitral institution's (in this case the ICC) decision on impartiality and independence, and a party's reaction to that decision, may influence the court's analysis.

The Court of Appeal's decision in the Seribo case (see Top developments of 2012 above). is expected in 2013. The case has generated discussion as to the validity and pitfalls of "multi-tiered" arbitration clauses and "med-arb" proceedings in which the roles of mediator and arbitrator are sometimes combined. This merger of roles is criticised by some as contrary to rules of procedural fairness and impartiality.