CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 27 novembre 2025

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } Legal summary November 2025 Renouard v. France - 46911/21 Judgment 27.11.2025 [Section V] Article 6 Article 6-1 Access to court Grant of jurisdictional immunity to United Arab Emirates (UAE) rendering inadmissible applicant’s claim that he had not been paid for acting as intermediary with French authorities to open university in UAE: no violation Facts – The applicant submitted that he had acted as an intermediary of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) vis-à-vis political and academic authorities in France in connection with a project to set up a branch of La Sorbonne University (Paris) in Abu Dhabi. According to him, the UAE authorites had agreed to pay him 2,000,000 euros (EUR) for his role. The final agreement on the creation of the University of Paris-Sorbonne Abu Dhabi (UPSAD) was signed in 2006. Being aggrieved that he had not been remunerated for his services in spite of the successful completion of his mission, the applicant sued, before the French court tribunal de grande instance (first-instance court), the UAE Presidential Affairs Ministry, the Secretary General of that ministry, the Abu Dhabi Education Council and UPSAD, for a joint order to pay him the agreed amount of his remuneration plus EUR 1,800,000 in damages. On 19   December 2013 the first-instance court dismissed the claims against the Abu Dhabi Education Council, UPSAD and the Secretary General of the UAE Presidential Affairs Ministry. It declared inadmissible the claim against the UAE Presidential Affairs Ministry on account of its immunity from jurisdiction. It took the view that the mandate entrusted to him by that ministry was part of the UAE State’s public service mission in the field of education. The act in question was not one of a private administrative nature (such as to exclude State immunity), but an act in the service of the public interest, thus enabling a foreign State or an emanation thereof to claim juridictional immunity. On 30   October 2015 the Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance judgment in so far as it dismissed the applicant’s claims against the Abu Dhabi Education Council and UPSAD. However, it reversed the judgment in respect of the claims against the UAE Presidential Affairs Ministry and its Secretary General, rejecting the bar of jurisdictional immunity. It ordered the latter jointly to pay the applicant EUR 2,000,000 for his fees, together with EUR 500,000 in damages. On 12 July 2017 the Court of Cassation quashed and annulled that judgment, except in so far as it had rejected the claims against the Abu Dhabi Education Council and UPSAD, and referred the case back to the Court of Appeal. On 28   May 2019 the Court of Appeal exonerated the Council and UPSAD and upheld the first-instance judgment for the remainder. On 3   March 2021 the Court of Cassation dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law. Law – Article   6 §   1: The granting of jurisdictional immunity to the UAE pursued the legitimate aim of compliance with international law for the sake of ensuring comity and good relations between States by respecting the sovereignty of another State. The Court had to determine whether the restriction on the applicant’s right of access to a court had a sufficient legal basis and was proportionate to the aim pursued. State immunity from jurisdiction was governed by customary international law, as codified in the United Nations Convention of 2 December 2004 on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and their Property (“UNCSI”). The provisions of an international treaty reflecting customary law applied to a respondent State, even if it had not ratified this instrument, provided it had not opposed it either. While the UNCSI had not yet entered into force, France had not only signed this convention on 17   January 2007, it had also ratified it on 28   June 2011. In addition, it followed from the settled case-law of the Court of Cassation that the domestic courts excluded, in line with international law principles, the jurisdictional immunity of foreign States where the act giving rise to the dispute was an act of administration ( acta jure gestionis ). While they did not specifically rely on the UNCSI, they ruled in the light of the definition in Article   2 of that convention to determine whether the act could be classified as an act of administration. Accordingly the Court took the view that there was no reason to find fault with the domestic courts’ conclusion that Articles   2 and 10 UNCSI, being relevant to the present case, applied to the respondent State by way of customary international law. The Court thus proceeded to examine the domestic courts’ decisions in the present case in the light of those international rules and having regard to Article   6 §   1 of the Convention. Referring to the definition of “commercial transaction” in Article   2 UNCSI, the Court found that the “purpose” of the transaction, since this was used as a relevant criterion for the determination under French law, had to be taken into account, in addition to the “nature” of the transaction. The domestic courts in the present case had continually adopted this two-tier test in order to determine whether the mission entrusted to the applicant by the UAE for the setting-up of UPSAD was to be classified as a “commercial transaction” for the purposes of Article   10 UNCSI; if that were the case the UAE authorities would not have jurisdictional immunity. As regards the weight to be given to the purpose of the transaction, the lack of any written record made it difficult in the present case to analyse the nature of the alleged mandate (in particular, the precise content of the mission and the possible existence of a clause excluding the jurisdiction of the ordinary courts), whereas the purpose of the operation was well documented. Nevertheless, the domestic courts had not failed to have due regard to its nature. In its judgment of 28   May 2019 the Court of Appeal had first observed that the mandate entrusted to the applicant pursued the purpose of collaborating with the French authorities on a project to set up a branch of the Sorbonne University in Abu Dhabi. It had then addressed in detail the applicant’s argument that the high amount of the fees charged for enrolment at UPSAD demonstrated the commercial nature of the transaction. He pointed to the close links between UPSAD and the UAE authorities. On this matter the Court of Appeal had not confined itself to brief statements but had substantiated its decision on the basis of the documents before it. The Court thus noted that the domestic courts had, in the present case, carried out an in-depth analysis of the transaction in question, looking at both the nature and purpose of the mission, thus finding that it had fallen with the exercise of sovereign powers by the UAE. After addressing all the arguments put forward by the applicant, they had concluded, by decisions reasoned in fact and in law, that the UAE’s jurisdictional immunity came into play in the present case. In the Court’s opinion, this approach was not incompatible with the customary international law principles reflected in Articles   2 and   10 UNCSI, and therefore there had been no arbitrariness or unreasonable interpretation in the way those principles were applied by the domestic courts. The Court concluded, in the light of the all the above considerations, that the French courts had not strayed in the present case from the generally recognised principles of international law in matters of State immunity and it could not be considered that the restriction of the applicant’s right of access to a court was disproportionate having regard to the requirements of Article   6 §   1 of the Convention. Conclusion : no violation (six votes to one). (See McElhinney v.   Ireland [GC], 31253/96, 21   November 2001, Legal Summary ; Cudak v.   Lithuania [GC], 15869/02, 23   March 2010, Legal Summary ; Sabeh El Leil v.   France [GC], 34869/05, 29   June 2011, Legal Summary ; Oleynikov v.   Russia , 36703/04, 14   March 2013, Legal Summary ; United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property of 2   December 2004 )   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. To access legal summaries in English or French click here . For non-official translations into other languages click here .