The Supreme Court recently ruled that the provisions that require arbitrators' details to be included in the award also apply by analogy to tribunal secretaries. Following the judgment, arbitrators should always refer in detail to the particulars of the secretary employed in the arbitration (which is always a best practice) in order to avoid unnecessary complications that may lead to the setting aside of the award.
In international trade, a general reference is sufficient to validly incorporate an arbitration clause contained in another document under Article II(2) of the New York Convention, provided that the clause is common and known to those engaged in a particular trade. The Piraeus Single-Member First-Instance Court recently ruled on a dispute regarding the enforcement of an arbitral award in Greece under the New York Convention.
In a recent case, the Supreme Court held that the requirement that specific authorisation be obtained for the person acting as a legal representative for the valid conclusion of an arbitration agreement refers only to a person acting as a proxy or an agent of the legal entity and does not refer to an organ of the legal entity – the very function of which is to represent the entity, such as the board of directors or its substitute.
The Supreme Court recently ruled that a violation of the burden of proof rules did not constitute grounds to set aside an arbitral award. This ruling is consistent with the court's previous stance when deciding whether violations of the res judicata effect could form grounds to set aside an arbitral award. It is also in line with the legislature's clear intention to limit state court control in arbitration in order to enhance its effectiveness and finality.
A recent Supreme Court decision held that an arbitration agreement may validly refer to future disputes; in such cases, the agreement must determine the definite legal relationship out of which such disputes will arise, but it is not necessary to refer to specific disputes. Further, the court held that an arbitration agreement does not extend its scope to disputes arising out of a subsequent agreement between the same parties, even if the subject matter concerns the initial agreement.
Greek courts have consistently held that arbitrators sitting under the rules of the Technical Chamber of Greece do not have jurisdiction to decide non-technical disputes; if they do so, their awards may be set aside for exceeding the jurisdiction that was conferred on them by law. A recent judgment of the Supreme Court qualifies this rule by clarifying the position with respect to incidental matters that are of a legal nature.
When a national legal provision is fixed by means of a stabilisation clause in a concession agreement, it becomes a contractual term of the agreement. Thus, any dispute relating to the application of the provision will fall under the scope of the agreement's arbitration clause. Contrary to case law, the Supreme Administrative Court recently held that the provision need not be directly incorporated into the contract; an express reference is sufficient.