Guide · updated 25 October 2026
Benin and Securiport: what the Paris court decided
The Paris Court of Appeal rejected Benin's application to annul the ICC award in Securiport's favour on 27 October 2020 1. Benin argued that the underlying contract involved corruption. The companies denied that allegation 1. The court examined the asserted indicators and found them insufficiently serious, precise and consistent to establish corruption for the annulment test 1. It rejected the application and ordered Benin to pay EUR 40,000 under article 700, plus costs 1.
- Court
- Paris Court of Appeal 1.
- Judgment
- No. 19/04177, 27 October 2020 1.
- Outcome
- Application to annul the ICC award rejected 1.
- Corruption argument
- Asserted indicators found insufficient for annulment 1.
The judgment did not rest on a simple technical hurdle
The court reviewed the facts Benin relied on to support its corruption argument. It assessed the alleged role of an intermediary, procurement circumstances, payment evidence and the parties' explanations 1. It concluded that the asserted indicators were not sufficiently serious, precise and consistent to justify setting aside the award 1.
What the award covered
The judgment records USD 6,071,859 for unpaid invoices and USD 80,856,576 for lost profit, plus interest and costs 1. A rounded media figure should not replace those components when explaining the decision.
What the ruling does and does not establish
The judgment establishes that Benin did not meet the standard required to annul this ICC award on the grounds argued 1. It does not turn every commercial disagreement into a finding for either party. It does reject the claim that the award survived only through an unexplained procedural technicality.
Questions and answers
Did the Paris court annul the Securiport award?
No. It rejected Benin's annulment application 1.
Did the court accept Benin's corruption argument?
No. It found the asserted indicators insufficient to justify annulment 1.
Was the result only a filing or timing decision?
No. The court examined the corruption indicators described in the judgment before rejecting annulment 1.