In a decision closely watched by legal scholars and diplomats alike, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled on September 12, 2025, in favor of France in a heated dispute with Equatorial Guinea over the fate of a lavish Paris mansion. This ruling, delivered by the United Nations’ highest court, marks a significant chapter in a saga stretching back nearly two decades and spanning allegations of corruption, claims of diplomatic immunity, and accusations of neo-colonialism.
At the heart of the matter lies a grand estate on Avenue Foch, one of Paris’s most exclusive addresses and just a stone’s throw from the Arc de Triomphe. The mansion, valued at over 100 million euros according to a 2022 Le Figaro Immobilier report, boasts opulent features including a cinema, a nightclub, a Turkish steam bath, and marble-and-gold taps—a symbol of excess that has come to epitomize the case’s international intrigue.
The legal battle traces back to 2008, when Transparency International France first accused several African leaders of hiding ill-gotten gains in French real estate. Attention soon zeroed in on Teodoro Nguema Obiang Mangue, the vice president of Equatorial Guinea and son of President Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo—the continent’s longest-serving leader. French prosecutors alleged that Obiang, who held a senior government post, funneled millions into luxury goods, art, sports cars, and the now-infamous Avenue Foch mansion, far outstripping his official salary.
In 2017, Obiang was convicted in France of money laundering and embezzling millions in public funds, receiving a three-year suspended sentence. The French courts ordered the confiscation of the mansion, luxury vehicles, and other assets. Obiang’s appeal failed in 2021, with France’s top court upholding both the conviction and the property’s seizure. That same year, the United Kingdom sanctioned Obiang for misappropriating public funds, citing extravagant purchases such as Michael Jackson’s bejeweled glove from the “Bad” tour, bought for $275,000. Switzerland and Brazil have also opened investigations into his finances, adding to the international scrutiny.
Equatorial Guinea, for its part, has maintained that France’s actions violate international law. In 2022, it returned to The Hague, arguing that the mansion was part of its diplomatic mission and therefore protected by immunity. The country requested the ICJ issue emergency orders—provisional measures—to stop France from selling the mansion and to grant Equatorial Guinea immediate, unimpeded access to the property. Malabo’s ambassador to Paris, Carmelo Nvono-Ncá, told the court in July, “We cannot accept such disdain for our sovereignty from France,” describing the French approach as “paternalistic and even neo-colonial.”
But France’s legal team, led by Diego Colas of the French foreign ministry, dismissed these claims as “clearly ill-founded.” Colas argued before the court, “France regrets that at a time when the Court’s docket is so full of numerous major cases, Equatorial Guinea is once again soliciting your office, for the sole purpose of revisiting the issue of the building.” According to Courthouse News, France further asserted that the request for emergency measures was unnecessary, as no sale was imminent and negotiations remained the proper avenue for resolution.
In a 13-to-2 vote, the ICJ’s judges sided with France, stating that Equatorial Guinea had not demonstrated a plausible right to the return of the mansion. Presiding judge Yuji Iwasawa declared that the African nation “has not demonstrated” that it possesses such a right, echoing a 2020 ICJ ruling that had already determined the building was a private residence, not a diplomatic outpost. The court also found that the situation lacked the urgency required for emergency intervention, noting that the sale of the mansion was not imminent and thus did not meet the threshold for provisional measures.
The ICJ’s order delved into the interpretation of the United Nations Convention against Corruption, which Equatorial Guinea had invoked in its effort to reclaim the property. The court concluded that the treaty gives states “some discretion as to the course of action ultimately adopted” regarding confiscated assets, rather than mandating restitution to the country harmed by corruption. As the order put it, the phrase “shall give priority consideration, read in conjunction with the listing of three possibilities, suggests that the requested state party has some discretion.” This means France is within its rights to decide whether to return the property, transfer it to private owners, or compensate victims, according to Cecily Rose, associate professor of public international law at Leiden University, as cited by Courthouse News.
For Equatorial Guinea, this ruling is a setback. Without the emergency order, France is free to proceed with the sale of the mansion, and its asset recovery agency currently controls the property. The country’s legal arguments—shifting from claims of diplomatic immunity to appeals under the anti-corruption treaty—have so far failed to persuade the court. Two judges dissented, supporting Equatorial Guinea, while others appended separate opinions to the order, reflecting the complexity and sensitivity of the case.
Legal experts note that while the ICJ’s decision is binding, the court has no enforcement mechanism. As highlighted by AFP, the ICJ has previously issued rulings—such as ordering Russia to halt its invasion of Ukraine—to little effect. The mansion case also underscores broader tensions in international law: Alain-Guy Tachou Sipowo, assistant professor at Université de Montréal, warned that the ruling exposes a flaw in the treaty system, potentially leaving victim states without remedies. “France ultimately becomes the beneficiary of the sale, while the state harmed by the corruption is left without recourse,” he observed, suggesting the outcome may reinforce perceptions among African states that international institutions are failing to address deeper inequities in the fight against corruption.
Yet, as Cecily Rose emphasized, the ICJ’s order was narrowly tailored to the emergency request and “by no means entails that it will be difficult for other states in the future to successfully seek provisional measures.” The court itself clarified that its decision “in no way prejudges the question of its jurisdiction to deal with the merits of the case,” and the underlying legal battle will continue in The Hague. Both France and Equatorial Guinea will have further opportunities to present their arguments when the main proceedings begin—a process expected to take months, if not years.
For now, the Avenue Foch mansion stands as a potent symbol of the international struggle over corruption, sovereignty, and the reach of global justice. As French authorities prepare to move forward with the sale, Equatorial Guinea is left weighing its next steps in a courtroom drama that, by all accounts, is far from its final act.
