The International Court of Justice (ICJ), the United Nations’ highest judicial body, delivered a decisive verdict on September 12, 2025, siding with France in a protracted legal battle against Equatorial Guinea over the fate of a lavish Parisian mansion. The ruling brings to a close—at least for now—a saga that has spanned more than a decade and spotlighted the intersection of international law, diplomatic immunity claims, and allegations of high-level corruption.
The dispute centers on a palatial property valued well above 100 million euros, situated on Avenue Foch, one of Paris’ most exclusive addresses and just a stone’s throw from the Arc de Triomphe. The mansion, which boasts extravagant features such as a cinema, a spa, marble and gold taps, a nightclub, and a Turkish steam bath, was seized by French authorities in 2012. The seizure was part of a sweeping corruption investigation targeting Teodoro Nguema Obiang Mangue—known as Teodorin—Equatorial Guinea’s vice president and the eldest son of President Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo, Africa’s longest-serving head of state.
According to AFP, Equatorial Guinea had pleaded with the ICJ to issue emergency orders, known in legal parlance as provisional measures, to prevent France from selling the mansion and to require French officials to grant immediate, full, and unimpeded access to the property. The request followed complaints that, in June 2025, French authorities entered the building, changed the locks, and damaged security cameras—actions Equatorial Guinea described as both invasive and disrespectful.
During hearings in July 2025, Carmelo Nvono-Ncá, Equatorial Guinea’s ambassador to Paris, sharply criticized France’s handling of the matter. He stated, “France’s approach may be described as paternalistic and even neo-colonial. We cannot accept such disdain for our sovereignty from France.” His remarks echoed a broader sentiment among Equatorial Guinean officials, who have long maintained that the French authorities’ actions violated their country’s dignity and rights under international law.
The French government, for its part, strongly rejected Equatorial Guinea’s claims. Diego Colas, legal adviser at the French foreign ministry, dismissed the request for provisional measures as “clearly ill-founded.” He told the court in July, “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.” Colas further characterized the request as “yet another abusive maneuver” by Equatorial Guinea, arguing that no sale of the mansion was imminent and that the matter should be resolved through diplomatic negotiation rather than judicial intervention.
On September 12, 2025, the ICJ delivered its verdict. Presiding judge Yuji Iwasawa announced, “After closely examining the arguments of the parties, the court concludes that Equatorial Guinea has not demonstrated... that it possesses a plausible right to the return of the building.” The court, by a margin of 13 votes to two, rejected Equatorial Guinea’s request for emergency orders. This decision, reported by both AFP and the Associated Press, effectively allows France to retain control over the property, at least for the time being.
The roots of the dispute trace back to 2012, when French authorities initiated an investigation into Teodorin’s finances. In 2017, a French court convicted him of embezzling millions of dollars in public funds from oil-rich but poverty-stricken Equatorial Guinea to bankroll his jet-set lifestyle in France. The court handed Teodorin a three-year suspended sentence and ordered the seizure of his assets, including the Paris mansion, luxury vehicles, and substantial sums of money. The legal proceedings culminated in 2021 when France’s top appeals court upheld the conviction and imposed a 30 million euro ($35 million) fine on Teodorin.
The case has reverberated far beyond France’s borders. According to the AP, Teodorin has faced similar scrutiny in other countries. In 2021, the United Kingdom sanctioned him for misappropriating public funds, citing, among other things, his extravagant purchase of Michael Jackson’s bejeweled glove for $275,000. Switzerland and Brazil have also launched investigations into his finances, further highlighting the international dimensions of the controversy.
Equatorial Guinea has repeatedly argued that the Paris mansion should be protected by diplomatic immunity, claiming at various points that it served as an official diplomatic outpost. However, in a 2020 ruling, the ICJ determined that the building was a private residence, not a diplomatic mission, thereby rejecting Equatorial Guinea’s claim that its seizure violated international law. Undeterred, the country returned to The Hague in 2022, asserting that France was obligated to return the assets under a United Nations anti-corruption convention.
The legal wrangling has underscored stark disparities within Equatorial Guinea itself. Despite its vast oil and gas reserves, the country remains deeply unequal, with a privileged ruling elite enjoying immense wealth while much of the population lives in poverty. The Obiang family’s grip on power—President Obiang has ruled since 1979—has drawn criticism from human rights groups and international observers, who view the corruption cases as emblematic of broader governance challenges.
The ICJ’s decision comes at a time when the court is grappling with a particularly heavy workload. As AFP notes, the ICJ is currently handling several high-profile cases, including a landmark lawsuit brought by South Africa against Israel over alleged violations of the UN Genocide Convention in Gaza and a recent ruling on countries’ climate change obligations. The court’s rulings are binding, but as legal experts often point out, the ICJ lacks the means to enforce its decisions. For instance, although the court has ordered Russia to halt its invasion of Ukraine, that directive has gone unheeded.
For now, the fate of the Paris mansion remains in France’s hands, much to the frustration of Equatorial Guinea’s leadership. While the ICJ’s ruling settles the immediate legal question, it leaves open broader issues of diplomatic immunity, the reach of international anti-corruption efforts, and the persistent challenges of enforcing global justice when national interests collide. The world, it seems, will have to keep watching as this story—and others like it—continue to unfold on the international stage.