International Law Office - Legal Newsletters, Law Firm Directory and Legal News

In a recent case the Supreme Court recognised the broad discretion enjoyed by the arbitral tribunal, failing an agreement by the parties, to determine the rules of the arbitral procedure. In such cases the tribunal has the right to determine the arbitral procedure by selecting a mixed procedural system, in light of the needs of the parties and the particular international arbitration, avoiding any peculiarities of Greek law.

The Supreme Court recently held that an amendment of claim or counterclaim in international arbitration is admissible, provided that a series of requirements are met. A request for preventive protection, even for future disputes that are conditional on the occurrence of a certain event, is not groundless, provided that future disputes fall within the scope of the arbitration agreement.

A recent judgment held that the grounds for resisting enforcement contained in Article V of the New York Convention are exhaustive; thus, any other ground (however framed) – including the full payment of an award – is inadmissible. It was also held that a claim to compensate for legal costs incurred as a result of a breach of an arbitration agreement is capable of being resolved through arbitration.

The Athens Court of Appeal partially refused enforcement of a foreign arbitral award that awarded punitive damages (in the form of a penalty) on grounds of public policy under the New York Convention. For the first time, the global economic crisis was held to be a contributing factor in determining the excessive nature of the punitive damages, which the court ruled had violated public policy.

The Supreme Court recently held that the filing of a domestic arbitral award with the registrar of the first instance court at the place where the award was made is not a condition for its validity. The date of the award is essential for establishing that the award was issued within the period for which the arbitration agreement was in force.

In the context of a motion before a state court to refer a dispute to arbitration, the objective arbitrability of such a dispute is governed by Greek law and not by the law that governs the arbitration procedure or agreement. The Piraeus Court of Appeal recently issued a judgment that dealt with objective (rather than subjective) arbitrability, as the question of arbitrability that was raised related to the subject matter and not to the parties of the dispute.