Arbitration Case in Paris: Paris Court of Appeal, 29 October 2026 (No. 25/16030)

​Republic of Guinea v. AD Trade Belgium  - Paris Court of Appeal, 29 October 2026 (No. 25/16030)

‍

I. The award and the property enforcement proceedings

AD Trade Belgium (“AD Trade”), a creditor of the Republic of Guinea (“Guinea”) under an arbitral award, obtained authorisation to seize a plot of land belonging to Guinea in France.

The property was sold at auction to Anor on 6 April 2023. Guinea bought it back on 4 August 2023.

AD Trade obtained a second authorisation to seize the property on 18 October 2023 and served a demand for payment initiating the property seizure on 10 November 2023.

On 27 June 2024, the enforcement judge (juge de l’exécution) ordered the forced sale at the orientation stage of the proceedings. Guinea neither appeared nor was represented. Its appeal subsequently lapsed because it had failed to serve its appeal submissions on a registered creditor.

Guinea then sought to challenge the seizure and prevent the sale.

On 4 September 2025, the enforcement judge held that its objections were inadmissible in view of the res judicata effect of the orientation judgment. The property was sold to Anor for EUR 2,060,000.

Guinea appealed.

II. The parties’ submissions

A. Guinea

Guinea argued that the property benefited from immunity from execution because it was intended for diplomatic use. It relied on the deed of purchase, a building permit and communications with the French Ministry for Europe and Foreign Affairs.

In particular, Guinea relied on a Ministry note dated 3 September 2025, issued the day before the auction. In its view, that note was a new circumstance arising after the orientation hearing, which prevented the earlier judgment from barring its immunity objection. Guinea further argued that the property’s intended use had to be assessed at the date of the court’s decision, rather than at the date of seizure.

It also maintained that its Ministry of Foreign Affairs had authority to represent it in the French proceedings to defend its diplomatic interests.

B. AD Trade

AD Trade first challenged the validity of Guinea’s appeal and submissions. It argued that Guinea should have been represented by its State judicial agent, rather than its Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

On the substance, AD Trade relied on the res judicata effect of the orientation judgment and the procedural rules barring late objections to property enforcement. It disputed the property’s diplomatic status and argued that the French Ministry’s note did not amount to recognition of immunity. The land remained undeveloped, and Guinea had not declared its diplomatic use before the seizure.

III. The Court of Appeal’s reasoning

Guinea’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs could represent the State. The Court examined the Guinean rules providing for representation by a State judicial agent. It held that those rules did not deprive the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of authority to represent Guinea in these proceedings, particularly to defend the interests of its diplomatic mission in France. The Court also referred to Art. 3 of the 1961 Convention on Diplomatic Relations. It therefore rejected the challenge to the validity of the appeal and submissions (Judgment, ¶¶25–34).

Diplomatic property is subject to a specific protective regime. The Court recalled Arts. L. 111-1-2 and L. 111-1-3 of the French Code of Civil Enforcement Procedures. These provisions protect property used or intended for diplomatic functions; measures against such property require an express and specific waiver by the State concerned (Judgment, ¶¶35–38).

The Court also recalled that the assessment is made at the date of the court’s decision. Referring to the Court of Cassation’s decision of 12 June 2025 (No. 21-11.991), it noted that, once the State alleges diplomatic use, the creditor must rebut the presumption by producing the response of the French Ministry’s protocol service, if necessary by seeking the enforcement judge’s assistance in obtaining it (Judgment, ¶¶39–40).

Those protections did not reopen a matter already finally decided. Art. R. 311-5 generally bars objections and incidental applications after the orientation hearing. Later objections may nevertheless be admissible if they concern subsequent procedural acts or arise from subsequent circumstances capable of preventing the seizure from continuing. The Court considered that rule together with the res judicata effect of the orientation judgment (Judgment, ¶¶41–43).

The Ministry’s note of 3 September 2025 recorded Guinea’s intention to construct a building on the land and eventually use it for diplomatic purposes. Guinea also relied on its own note of 10 June 2024 informing the French authorities of the intended use of the future building for diplomatic accommodation and embassy offices (Judgment, ¶¶44–45).

Guinea could therefore already have alleged the land’s intended diplomatic use at the orientation hearing. The Ministry’s later response was neither a new element permitting reconsideration of the orientation judgment nor a subsequent circumstance within the meaning of Art. R. 311-5 (Judgment, ¶¶46–47).

The orientation judgment had held the land to be seizable. Guinea could no longer invoke immunity to challenge that final determination (Judgment, ¶¶48–49).

The Court accordingly upheld the judgment and ordered Guinea to pay EUR 15,000 towards AD Trade’s legal costs, together with the costs of the proceedings.

IV. Takeaways

Timing matters, including for immunity objections. The decision does not remove the protection afforded to diplomatic property. It confirms that a State must raise its immunity objection at the appropriate stage of property enforcement proceedings and diligently pursue any appeal. A later Ministry response concerning an intended diplomatic use which could already have been alleged does not, in itself, reopen a final orientation judgment.