# Court of Appeal of Paris

48°51′22″N 2°20′42″E﻿ / ﻿48.856°N 2.345°E﻿ / 48.856; 2.345 The Court of Appeal of Paris (French: Cour d'appel de Paris) is the largest appeals court in France in terms of the number of cases brought before it. Its jurisdiction covers the departments of Paris, Essonne, Yonne, Seine-et-Marne, Seine-Saint-Denis, and the Val de Marne.
The Court is housed in the Palais de Justice of Paris. Jacques Degrandi has been the president of the Court since 2010.

## Malaysia-Sulu Case

The Malaysia-Sulu case involving a multi-billion dollar arbitration settlement claim made by the alleged heirs of the last Sultan of Sulu is one of the most high-profile cases heard at the Court of Appeal of Paris. The arbitration case featured the region of Sabah and a colonial-era agreement. The 1878 agreement involved a deal with the Sulu sultan for the use of his territory now falling in present-day Malaysia. The Malaysian government continued honoring the agreement until 2013 and stopped payment henceforth, leading to the arbitration case.
The claimants had demanded compensation worth US$32 billion. In January 2022, Spanish arbitrator Gonzalo Stampa ruled in favor of claimants, awarding an arbitration settlement of US$15 billion, the largest such award in international arbitration history. The award was eventually struck down by the Hague Court of Appeal on June 27, 2023.
Stampa was later found guilty of contempt of court and was sentenced to six months in prison and banned from practising as an arbitrator for a year.
On May 17, 2024 the Madrid Court of Appeal upheld the contempt of court conviction and sentence against Stampa, upholding his six-month prison sentence, and a one-year ban from practicing as an arbitrator. The Madrid Court highlighted that the arbitrator's appointment was a judicial decision made before the arbitration process. Consequently, once the nullification of the appointment was confirmed, all subsequent arbitral proceedings stemming from that appointment were rendered invalid, as if they had never occurred.
Malaysian Minister Azalina Othman said, “In its judgment, the Madrid Court of Appeal confirms that Stampa knowingly and wilfully disobeyed the clear rulings and orders of the Madrid High Court of Justice resulting from the nullification of his appointment as arbitrator. Later on May 30, 2024, Malaysian state-owned petroleum firm Petronas moved a Manhattan court to seek directions for litigation funding firm Therium and its parent company to turn over subpoenaed financial documents and communications. Petronas’ Azerbaijani arm said it would sue the companies and their lawyers in Spain over losses from the seizure of assets in Luxembourg.
Former Spanish Judge Josep Galvez — barrister at 4-5 Gray's Inn Square Chambers, which the lawyers of Sulu claimants Paul Cohen and Elisabeth Mason also associate with — said the Madrid Court’s ruling underscored the importance of rigorous compliance with procedural requirements and judicial orders under Spanish law, as failure to do so could invite severe penalties. “The conviction of Stampa serves as a lesson for international arbitration practitioners, emphasizing the paramount importance of adhering to judicial orders in Spain,” he wrote.
On November 7, 2024, the French Court of Cassation—the highest court in the French judicial system—annulled a $15 billion arbitration ruling against Malaysia. This decision marked a significant legal victory for Malaysia and reinforced its sovereignty in a dispute with the self-proclaimed Sulu heirs. The ruling highlighted irregularities in the arbitration process led by Gonzalo Stampa and raised concerns about practices such as forum shopping and unregulated litigation funding in European courts.
The French court’s decision was deemed a significant “win” for Malaysia that effectively marked the end of the Sulu case by several publications, including Law.com and Law360. Keith Ellison, former vice chairman of the Democratic National Committee and Minnesota attorney general, pointed out that the case highlighted the enormous scope for “corruption,” irresponsible profiteering, and foreign influence operations to subvert arbitration proceedings”.