"If at any time within the period of this Agreement or thereafter, any doubt, difference or dispute shall arise between the Parties concerning the interpretation or execution of this Agreement or anything connecting therewith or concerning the rights and liabilities of the Parties hereunder, the same shall, failing any agreement to settle it by other means, be referred to arbitration. Each Party shall appoint one arbitrator. If such arbitrators fail to settle the dispute by mutual agreement or to agree upon a Third Arbitrator, the President of the International Chamber of Commerce in Paris shall be requested to appoint such Third Arbitrator. The decision of the Board of Arbitrators so appointed shall be final and binding upon the Parties."
"Si, à quelque moment que ce soit pendant la durée du présent Accord ou ultérieurement, un doute, différend ou litige quelconque se produit entre les Parties concernant l'interprétation ou l'exécution de cet Accord ou toute matière y relative, ou concernant les droits et obligations des Parties découlant de cet Accord, et à défaut d'accord sur un autre mode de règlement, ce doute, différend ou litige sera soumis à l'arbitrage. Chaque Partie nommera un arbitre. Si ces arbitres ne règlent pas le litige d'un commun accord, ou s'ils ne se mettent pas d'accord sur le choix d'un Troisième Arbitre, il sera demandé au Président de la Chambre de commerce internationale [CCI] à Paris de nommer ce Troisième Arbitre. La décision du Tribunal arbitral ainsi constitué sera définitive et obligatoire pour les Parties."
"Considering, however, that the impossibility for a party to seize a jurisdiction, albeit an arbitral one, entrusted with deciding its claim to the exclusion of any state court and to exercise in this manner a right belonging to the international public policy consecrated by the principles of international arbitration and Art. 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, constitutes a denial of justice justifying the international jurisdiction of the President of the Paris District Court in its mission of assistance and cooperation of the state court to the constitution of an arbitral tribunal when there is a connection with France; that the judgment under appeal having stated that in the present state of the jurisprudence of the Appellant's Supreme Court Z.________ company was no in a position to seize the courts [of the Appellant] or [of the Respondent] to appoint an arbitrator in lieu [of the Appellant] which refused to do so, since [the Appellant] had specifically refused to acknowledge their respective jurisdiction to do so, such impossibility being general and lasting and, finally, that the connection with France, albeit thin, based on the choice of the President of the ICC in Paris for the possible appointment of a third arbitrator, was the only one of which Z.________ company could usefully avail itself to ensure the realization of their common intent to resort to arbitration, the Court of Appeal correctly deducted that this constituted a denial of justice to company Z.________ justifying the international jurisdiction of the French Courts; that by holding that when the President of the District Court denied jurisdiction to issue a decision he disregarded the scope of his powers and thus decided ultra vires negatively speaking, the Court of Appeal justified its decision in accordance with the law."
3.3 Ultimately, once the criticism that the matter is not capable of appeal has been set aside, the only issue remaining within the framework of Art. 190 (2) (a) PILA is whether or not Art. 12 (a) of the Participation Agreement prevented the appointment of the Appellant's arbitrator by a State Court, whichever it may be. On the basis of its judgment of February 1, 2005, it would not appear that the French Cour de Cassation dealt with this issue although the Court had the legal opinion of professor [name omitted] devoted to this issue.
2. The judicial costs set at CHF 200'000 shall be borne by the Appellant.
3. The Appellant shall pay to the Respondent and amount of CHF 250'000 for the federal judicial proceedings.
4. This judgment shall be communicated to the representatives of the parties and to the Arbitral Tribunal.