• Search

Investment Treaty Arbitration

Last verified on Tuesday 6th November 2018

Greece

    Overview of investment treaty programme

  1. 1.

    What are the key features of the investment treaties to which this country is a party?

    1. BIT Contracting Party or MIT

      Substantive protections

      Procedural rights

      Fair and equitable treatment (FET)

      Expropriation

      Protection
      and security

      Most-favoured-nation (MFN)

      Umbrella clause

      Cooling-off period

      Local courts

      Arbitration

      Azerbaijan (3 September 2006)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      6 months

      Yes

      Yes

      Albania (4 January 1995)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      No

      6 months

      Yes

      Yes

      Algeria (21 September 2007)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      No

      6 months

      Yes

      Yes

      Argentina (not in force)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      6 months

      Yes

      Yes

      Armenia (28 April 1995)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      6 months

      Yes

      Yes

      Bosnia and Herzegovina (14 June 2007)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      6 months

      No

      Yes

      Bulgaria (29 April 1995)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      No

      6 months

      Yes

      Yes

      Chile (27 December 2002)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      3 months (investor-contracting party)

      6 months (between 2 contracting parties)

      Yes

      Yes

      China (21 December 1993)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      6 months

      Yes

      Yes

      Croatia (21 October 1998)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      6 months

      Yes

      Yes

      Cuba (17 October 1997)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      6 months

      Yes

      Yes

      Cyprus (26 February 1993)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      No

      6 months

      Yes

      Yes

      Egypt (6 April 1995)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      6 months

      Yes

      Yes

      Estonia (1 August 1998)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      6 months

      Yes

      Yes

      Georgia (3 August 1996)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      6 months

      No

      Yes

      Germany (15 July 1963)

      No

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      No

      No

      No

      Yes

      Hungary (1 February 1992)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      No

      6 months

      No

      Yes

      India (10 April 2008)

      See NB 2 below

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      No

      6 months

      Yes

      Yes

      Iran (9 January 2009)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      No

      6 months

      Yes

      Yes

      Jordan (8 February 2007)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      6 months

      Yes

      Yes

      Kazakhstan (not in force)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      6 months

      Yes

      Yes

      Korea (5 November 1995)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      6 months

      No

      Yes

      Latvia (8 February 1998)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      6 months

      Yes

      Yes

      Lebanon (17 July 1999)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      6 months

      Yes

      Yes

      Lithuania (10 July 1997)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      6 months

      Yes

      Yes

      Mexico (26 September 2002)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      6 months

      Yes

      Yes

      Moldova (27 February 2000)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      6 months

      Yes

      Yes

      Morocco (17 June 2000)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      No

      6 months only for disputes between investor and contracting party

      Yes

      Yes

      Poland (20 February 1995)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      6 months

      Yes

      Yes

      Romania (12 June 1998)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      6 months

      Yes

      Yes

      Russia (23 February 1997)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      6 months

      Yes

      Yes

      FR of Yugoslavia (Now Serbia) (8 May 1998)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes?

      6 months

      Yes

      Yes

      Slovakia (31 December 1992)

      Yes?

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      No

      6 months

      Yes

      Yes

      Slovenia (10 February 2000)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      6 months

      Yes

      Yes

      South Africa (5 September 2001)

      See NB 3 below

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      6 months

      Yes

      Yes

      Syria (27 February 2004)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      6 months

      Yes

      Yes

      Tunisia (21 April 1995)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      No

      6 months

      Yes

      Yes

      Turkey (24 November 2001)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      6 months

      No

      Yes

      Ukraine (4 January 1997)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      No

      6 months

      No

      Yes

      Uzbekistan ( 8 May 1998)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      6 months

      Yes

      Yes

      Zaire (now DR of Congo)- not in force yet/ not ratified by DR of Congo

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      No

      6 months only for disputes between investor and contracting party

      Yes

      Yes

      Vietnam (8 December 2011)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      6 months

      Yes

      Yes

      United Arab Emirates (6 March 2016)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      6 months

      Yes

      Yes

      Kuwait (date of signature 12 June 2014 – not ratified yet by the Hellenic Parliament)

      -

      -

      -

      -

      -

      -

      -

      -

      NB 1: Greece participates in the following Multilateral Investment Treaties (MITs):

      • World Trade Organisation (WTO)
      • United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL)
      • United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD)
      • World Association of Investment Promotion Agencies (WAIPA)
      • Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)
      • Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI)
      • World Bank: MIGA (Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency) and ICSID (International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes)
      • Energy Charter Treat (ECT).

      NB 2: The Government of the Republic of India has given a notice of termination. The BIT contains a sunset clause according to which, for investments made prior to the date of termination of the BIT, the BIT’s articles shall continue to be effective for a further period of 10 years, namely until 10.04.2028 (following confirmation by the competent Ministry).

      NB 3: The Government of the Republic of South Africa has given a notice of termination. The BIT contains a sunset clause according to which, for investments made prior to the date of termination of the BIT, the BIT’s articles shall continue to be effective for a further period of 10 years, namely until 05.09.2031 (following confirmation by the competent Ministry).

    Qualifying criteria - any unique or distinguishing features?

  2. 2.

    Definition of "investor"

    What are the distinguishing features of the definition of “investor” in this country’s investment treaties?

    1. Issue

      Distinguishing features in relation to the definition of ‘investor’

      Seat of investor/effective economic activities

      In general, the Greek BITs define as investor (in addition to nationals of each contracting party) legal entities incorporated, constituted or otherwise duly organised under the laws of either contracting party. Moreover, some BITs (eg, Morocco, Azerbaijan, Tunisia, Serbia, Turkey, United Arab Emirates etc) provide that a legal entity qualifies as investor to the extent it also has its “seat” or its “effective economic activity” or its “headquarters” in the territory of the contracting party under the laws of which it has been incorporated or duly organised.

      Third state legal entities

      Under the Lithuania BIT the definition of “legal entities” includes not only “a legal entity set up under the laws of a contracting party”, but also “any entity or organisation established under the law of any third state, which is directly or indirectly controlled by Lithuanian nationals or entities having their seat (head office) in the territory of the Republic of Lithuania”. The broad investor definition in that treaty applies only to Lithuania, while a different investor definition applies to Greece.

      Permanent residents

      As far as natural persons are concerned, the vast majority of BITs defines them in relation to their nationality. However, the Lithuanian BIT provides that in order for a Lithuanian person to be classified as investor it should also have its permanent residence in the territory of Lithuania.

  3. 3.

    Definition of "investment"

    What are the distinguishing features of the definition of "investment" in this country’s investment treaties?

    1. Issue

      Distinguishing features in relation to the concept of ‘investment’

      Eligible assets

      Most Greek BITs define “investments” as “any kind of assets invested by investors of one contracting party in the territory of the other contracting party”. The Mexico BIT refers to “every kind of asset acquired or used for economic purposes”, whereas the Hungarian BIT defines as investment “every kind of asset connected with the participation in companies and joint ventures”.

      Direct or indirect contribution

      The Moroccan BIT explicitly includes in the definition of investments “any kind of direct or indirect contribution to any kind of companies”.

      Commencement of coverage

      Most Greek BITs protect investments made prior to their entry into force (eg, Albania, Azerbaijan, Egypt, Algeria, Bosnia, Estonia, Korea, Cyprus, Latvia, South Africa, Poland, Syria, Chile, the United Arab Emirates). Some BITs also protect pre-existing investments made on a specific date or later (Bulgaria, Russia and Tunisia). Some BITs expressly provide that they do not apply to disputes that arose prior to their entry into force (eg, Algeria, Vietnam, Lithuania, Chile, Cuba, Croatia, Lebanon, Bulgaria, Romania, Syria, Bosnia, the United Arab Emirates).

      Accordance with local laws

      Most Greek BITs explicitly require investments to have been “admitted” by a contracting party subject to that contracting party’s laws.

    Substantive protections - any unique or distinguishing features?

  4. 4.

    Fair and equitable treatment

    What are the distinguishing features of the fair and equitable treatment standard in this country’s investment treaties?

    1. Issue

      Distinguishing features of the fair and equitable treatment standard

      Illustrations of the FET standard

      While the fair and equitable treatment standard is described broadly in most Greek BITs providing that the investments of investors of each contracting party shall at all times be accorded fair and equitable treatment, the Congo BIT extends the application of the FET standard to the assets, the rights and the interest that belong to investors of each contracting party.

      No explicit reference to the FET standard

      The German BIT does not refer explicitly to the fair and equitable standard.

  5. 5.

    Expropriation

    What are the distinguishing features of the protection against expropriation standard in this country’s investment treaties?

    1. Issue

      Distinguishing features of the ‘expropriation’ standard

      Indirect expropriation

      Four investment treaties expressly provide for protective measures against direct as well as indirect expropriation (Turkey, Chile, Mexico and Hungary).

      In accordance with the “due process of law”

      The majority of Greek investment treaties require that any expropriation of an investment must occur under “due process of law” (eg, Egypt, Argentina). However three BITs do not include this specific condition (Germany, Morocco and Albania); they only provide that investments can be expropriated in the public interest.

      The investor’s right to prompt review/ Recourse to local court

      Eight BITs (Korea, Serbia, Lithuania, Lebanon, Ukraine, Chile, Bosnia, United Arab Emirates) provide that the investor shall have a right, under the law of the contracting party in which the expropriation occurs to prompt review by a judicial or other competent authority of that contracting party, concerning the legality of the expropriation, its process and the valuation of the investment in accordance with the principles set out in the respective article of the BIT.

      Right to compensation

      In general, compensation shall be equivalent to the market value of the expropriated investment, freely transferable and paid without undue delay. Compensation shall be prompt, adequate and effective. Hungary’s BIT refers to this term as “just compensation”. China’s BIT provides that compensation shall be calculated so as “to place the investor in the same financial position in which he would have been, if the expropriation measures had not been taken”. In Croatia’s BIT the transfer of compensation shall be made “without undue delay”, whereas the period normally required for such a transfer to take place “shall in no case exceed three months”. Mexico’s BIT expressly refers to specific valuation criteria that include “the going concern value, asset value including declared tax value of tangible property and other, as appropriate, to determine the market value”. In Bulgaria’s BIT “any decrease in value (of the compensation) due to the public announcement shall not be taken into account”.

  6. 6.

    National treatment/most-favoured-nation treatment

    What are the distinguishing features of the national treatment/most-favoured-nation treatment standard in this country’s investment treaties?

    1. Issue

      Distinguishing features of the ‘national treatment’ and/or ‘most favoured nation’ standard

      Common limitations

      All Greek BITs explicitly provide that the application of the MFN standard does not extend to the benefits resulting from a membership in a monetary union, customs union, common market or free trade area nor to taxation agreements and/or taxation legislation.

      Scope

      While all Greek BITs provide that the “most favoured nation” standard applies only to “investments”, eight BITs (Syria, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Korea, India, Vietnam, Turkey and United Arab Emirates) extend the protection to “returns” as well. According to most BITs the MFN standard applies to investors in relation to their activities in general, whereas the Korean, Mexican, Vietnamese, Slovenian and Serbian BITs as well as the BIT with United Arab Emirates accord the same protection to investors in relation to the management, maintenance, use, enjoyment or disposal of their investments.

      Exceptions to National Treatment and Most-Favoured-Nation Treatment

      Both the Russian and the Bulgarian BITs confer on each contracting party the right to make or maintain exceptions from national treatment, while according to the Vietnamese BIT only the government of Vietnam may apply exceptions to the principle of the national treatment in accordance with its legislation and development policy.

      Limitations to National Treatment and Most-Favoured-Nation Treatment

      According to the Argentinean BIT the "national treatment" and "most favoured nation" standard do not extend to preferences or privileges deriving from the bilateral agreements providing for concessional financing concluded between Argentina and Italy on 10 December 1987 and between Argentina and Spain on 3 June 1988. Finally, the South African BIT expressly provides that special advantages conferred on international development finance institutions with foreign participation and established for the exclusive purpose of development assistance through mainly non-profit activities shall not be accorded to development finance institutions or other investors of the other contracting party. The Lebanon BIT provides that neither contracting party shall be obliged to apply the provisions of the "national treatment" and "most favoured nation" standards to the acquisition of real estate property and related rights in its territory by investors of the other contracting party. According to the BIT with United Arab Emirates this treatment of investment "does not include investor – to – state dispute settlement procedures provided for in other international investment agreements".

  7. 7.

    Protection and security

    What are the distinguishing features of the obligation to provide protection and security to qualifying investments in this country’s investment treaties?

    1. Issue

      Distinguishing features of the ‘protection and security’ standard

      Extent of obligation

      The vast majority of the Greek BITs provide that “the investments shall enjoy full protection and security”. The Polish and Slovakian BITs, however, only refer to “full security” and there is no reference to the protection of the investments.

      Restriction on the protection

      According to the Moroccan BIT, investments shall enjoy full protection and security provided that the contracting party does not need to take any necessary measures to safeguard public order.

  8. 8.

    Umbrella clause.

    What are the distinguishing features of the umbrella clauses contained within this country’s investment treaties?

    1. Issue

      Distinguishing features of any ‘umbrella clause’

      Scope

      The majority of Greece’s BITs contain an umbrella clause (eg, Korea, Moldova, Estonia, Chile, Turkey, Cuba).

      Qualification of the Obligation

      Mexico’s BIT specifically provides that disputes arising from obligations, which may have been entered into in writing with regard to a specific investment, shall be settled only under the terms and conditions of the respective contract.

  9. 9.

    Other substantive protections.

    What are the other most important substantive rights provided to qualifying investors in this country?

    1. Issue

      Other substantive protections

      Free transfer of payments

      All Greek BITs provide for the unrestricted transfer of investments and their returns in a freely convertible currency, without delay.

      Transfer Restrictions

      Two of Greece’s BITs (Mexico and Iran) explicitly refer to delay or prevention of a transfer in order to protect the rights of creditors relating to or ensuring compliance with laws and regulations i) on the issuing, trading and dealing in securities, futures and derivatives, ii) concerning reports or records of transfers, or in connection with criminal offences and orders of judgments in administrative or adjudicatory proceedings, provided that such measures shall not be used in order to avoid the contracting party’s commitments or obligations. Moreover Vietnam’s BIT has an extensive list of the kind of regulations where the prevention or delay of transfer should be related to “bankruptcy, insolvency, issuing trading, taxation, social security etc”. Mexico and Vietnam’s BITs provide that “in case of serious balance of payments difficulties or the threat thereof each contracting party may temporarily restrict transfers…in accordance with the International Monetary Fund standards”. Such restrictions should “be imposed on good faith, equitable, non-discriminatory basis”.

      Non-impairment

      The majority of Greece’s BITs impose upon contracting parties the obligation not to impair the management, maintenance, use, enjoyment or disposal in its territory, of investments by investors of the other party by unjustifiable or discriminatory measures. However, there are eight BITs that do not have a no-impairment provision (Zaire, Ukraine, Armenia, Poland, China, Slovakia, Albania, Georgia).

      Armed Conflict/Civil Unrest

      All of Greece’s BITs provide that in case of war or other armed conflict, a state of national emergency, civil disturbance or other similar events in the territory of the other contracting party the investor is entitled to restitution, indemnification, compensation or other settlement. Most Greek BITs also provide the same protection in case of losses due to requisitioning of the investment by the contracting party’s forces or authorities or the unnecessary destruction of it. Some BITs do not have such a provision (Argentina, Korea, Hungary).

      Application of other rules

      The majority of Greece’s BITs contain an article that refers to the application of other rules from the laws of either contracting party or obligations under international law existing at present or established between the contracting parties, entitling investments by investors of the one contracting party made in the other to treatment more favourable than the treatment under the BIT; such rules shall prevail over the competent rules of the relevant BIT. Three BITs do not contain such rule (Germany, Zaire, Morocco). In Iran’s BIT this provision is found under the title “more favourable provisions”.

      Facilitation of the necessary permits

      Iran’s, Uzbekistan’s and Lebanon’s BITs refer to the obligation of each contracting party to facilitate, in accordance with its laws and regulations, the issuance of necessary permits for the realisation of an investment (“licensing agreements and contracts for technical commercial or administrative assistance”, more specifically in Uzbekistan’s BIT). Moreover, China’s BIT provides that each contracting party shall “grant assistance and provide facilities for obtaining visas and work permits” relating to entry, stay and work of natural persons.

    Procedural rights in this country’s investment treaties

  10. 10.

    Are there any relevant issues related to procedural rights in this country’s investment treaties?

    1. Issue

      Procedural Rights

      Fork-in-the-road

      The vast majority of the Greek BITs contain fork-in-the-road provisions. According to these provisions, investors may submit their dispute for resolution either to the local courts or to international arbitration. The Turkish, Hungarian and Korean BITs do not include such provisions. Finally, the Bulgarian BIT applies the fork-in-the-road provision to disputes relating only to the expropriation, compensation for losses and transfer of payments.

      Failure to conciliate

      All Greek BITs provide for a specific period of time during which the disputing parties shall pursue a settlement before they proceed to litigation or arbitration.

      ICSID or ad hoc arbitration

      Most Greek BITs provide a right of recourse to ICSID (eg, Cyprus, Algeria, Moldova etc). Some treaties also allow investors to pursue an arbitration claim through: a) an ad hoc tribunal constituted in accordance with the arbitration rules of UNCITRAL, (eg, Argentina, Croatia, Russia, Latvia, Serbia etc), b) the Arbitration Institute of the Arbitral Tribunal of the Chamber of Commerce in Stockholm (Hungary), c) the Arbitral Tribunal of the ICC in Paris (Hungary and Turkey) or d) the ICSID Additional Facility (eg United Arab Emirates).

      Time limits

      The Greek BITs do not provide any time limits regarding the procedure followed by the arbitral tribunal. According to the Turkish BIT, however, “all the submissions shall be made to the arbitral tribunal and all the hearings shall be completed within eight months from the date of selection of the chairman, and the tribunal shall render its decision within two months after the date of the final submissions or the date of the closing of hearings, whichever is later.”

      Written notice

      Only the Mexican BIT requires that the investor shall deliver to the contracting party written notice of intention to submit a claim to arbitration at least 90 days before the actual claim is submitted to arbitration.

      Use MFN to expand procedural rights

      The Korean BIT explicitly provides that “the legal remedies under the laws and regulations of the contracting party in the territory of which the investment has been made shall be available for the investor of the other contracting party on the basis of treatment no less favourable than that accorded to investments of its own investors or investors of any third state, whichever is more favourable to the investor”.

      Applicable law

      Most treaties are generally silent regarding the law which governs the parties’ dispute providing “that the arbitration tribunal shall decide on the basis of respect of law, including particularly the agreement in question and other relevant agreements between the contracting parties as well as the generally acknowledged rules and principles of international law”. The Bosnian BIT, though, specifies “that the arbitral tribunal shall decide the dispute in accordance with the law of the contracting party in the territory of which the investment has been made including its rules relative to the conflict of laws”.

      Confidentiality

      While most Greek BITs remain silent in relation to this issue, the Mexican BIT provides “that the final award will only be published if there is a written agreement by both parties to the dispute”.

      Place of Arbitration

      According to the Mexican and Lithuanian BITs, any arbitration shall, at the request of any part to the dispute, be held in a state that is party to the United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, New York 10 June 1958 (the New York Convention).

      Enforcement of the award.

      The Mexican BIT explicitly provides that a disputing party may not seek enforcement of a final award until 120 days have elapsed from the date the award was rendered and no disputing party has requested revision or annulment of the award or revision or annulment proceedings have been completed, in respect of disputes being resolved under the ICSID Convention. In relation, however, to a final award under the ICSID Additional Facility Rules or the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules the enforcement of the award is possible in one of the following cases: three months have elapsed from the date the award was rendered and no disputing party has commenced a proceeding to revise, set aside or annul the award; a court has dismissed an application to revise, set aside or annul the award and there is no further appeal; or a court has allowed an application to revise, set aside or annul the award and the proceeding has been completed and there is no further appeal.

  11. 11.

    What is the status of this country’s investment treaties?

    1. There has been no amendment in relation to the Bilateral and the Multilateral Investment Treaties noted above.

    Practicalities of commencing an investment treaty claim against this country

  12. 12.

    To which governmental entity should notice of a dispute against this country under an investment treaty be sent? Is there a particular person or office to whom a dispute notice against this country should be addressed?

    1. Government entity to which claim notices are sent

      In general, a notice of dispute should be addressed to the minister of finance.

  13. 13.

    Which government department or departments manage investment treaty arbitrations on behalf of this country?

    1. Government department which manages investment treaty arbitrations

      Investment treaty arbitrations are typically handled by the Ministry of Finance; other state agencies may be involved on an ad hoc basis.

  14. 14.

    Are internal or external counsel used, or expected to be used, by the state in investment treaty arbitrations? If external counsel are used, does the state normally go through a formal public procurement process when hiring them?

    1. Internal/External Counsel

      Arrangements for the defence of investor-state arbitration are determined by the Greek government on a claim-by-claim basis.

    Practicalities of enforcing an investment treaty claim against this country

  15. 15.

    Has the country signed and ratified the Washington Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States (1965)? Please identify any legislation implementing the Washington Convention.

    1. Washington Convention implementing legislation

      Greece has signed and ratified the Washington Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States (1965). The legislation implementing the Washington Convention is the Mandatory Law 608/1968. (Entry into force date 21 May 1969).

  16. 16.

    Has the country signed and ratified the United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (1958) (the New York Convention)? Please identify any legislation implementing the New York Convention.

    1. New York Convention implementing legislation

      Greece has signed and ratified the United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (1958). The legislation implementing the New York Convention is Legislative Decree 4220/1961. (Entry into force date 14 October 1962).

  17. 17.

    Does the country have legislation governing non-ICSID investment arbitrations seated within its territory?

    1. Legislation governing non-ICSID arbitrations

      Law 2735/1999 gives the UNCITRAL Model Law the force of law in Greece.

  18. 18.

    Does the state have a history of voluntary compliance with adverse investment treaty awards; or have additional proceedings been necessary to enforce these against the state?

    1. Compliance with adverse awards

      So far no awards have been rendered against Greece under its investments treaties. Based on publicly available information, (1) Cyprus Popular Bank, (2) Iskandar Safa and Akram Safa and (3) Bank of Cyprus Public Company Limited have initiated arbitration proceedings against the Hellenic Republic under ICSID Convention – Arbitration Rules.

  19. 19.

    Describe the national government’s attitude towards investment treaty arbitration

    1. Attitude of government towards investment treaty arbitration

      So far the Greek government has not announced any derogation clause about the already existent provisions of the investment treaties.

  20. 20.

    Does the country have an investment guarantee scheme or offer political risk insurance that protects local investors when investing abroad? If so, what are the qualifying criteria, substantive protections provided and the means by which an investor can invoke the protections?

    1. Relevant guarantee scheme

      Qualifying criteria, substantive protections provided and practical considerations

      Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency

      Greece has ratified the Convention establishing the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA).

      Moreover, the Export Credit Insurance Organization (ECIO), a non-profit legal entity established in Greece by virtue of Law 1796/1988 insures, against commercial and political risks of non-payment, the export credits granted by Greek exporters to foreign buyers abroad who buy Greek products, services or even projects. ECIO also insures the investments undertaken abroad by Greek entrepreneurs against political risks. The ECIO is supervised by the Ministry of Economy and Development, while its state guarantee capital amounts to €1.47 billion.

    National legislation protecting inward investments

  21. 21.

    To what extent have local courts been supportive and respectful of investment treaty arbitration, including the enforcement of awards?

    1. Attitude of local courts towards investment treaty arbitration

      Greek courts have never been called upon to enforce an investment treaty award against Greece.

    National legislation protecting outgoing foreign investment

  22. 22.

    Is there any national legislation that protects inward foreign investment enacted in this country? Describe the content.

    1. National legislation

      Substantive protections

      Procedural rights

      FET

      Expropriation

      Other

      Local courts

      Arbitration

      Legislative decree 2687/1953 “Investment and Protection of Foreign Capital”

      Yes (Art 10)

      Yes (Art 11)

      Yes

      No

      Yes (Art 12)

      For the promotion and expansion of foreign investments in Greece the following laws have been put into force:

      1. Law 4441/2016 “Simplification of the Procedures for the Establishment of Companies. Waiver of Regulatory Obstacles to Competition and other provisions” (as amended by Law 4497/2017 “Exercise of open-air commercial activities, Modernization of Chambers’ Regulation and other provisions” and Law 4541/2018 “Amendment of Law 3190/1955 on Limited Liability Companies and other provisions”).
      2. Law 3894/2010 “Acceleration and Transparency regarding the Realization of Strategic Investments” (as amended by Law 4072/2012 “Improvement of the Business Environment – New Corporate Form – Trademarks – Real Estate Agents – Regulation of Shipping, Port and Fishing related matters and other provisions”, Law 4146/2013 “Creation of a Development-friendly Environment for Strategic and Private Investments”, Law 4242/2014 “Unified Agency for Outward Orientation and other provisions”, Law 4262/2014 “Simplification of the licensing procedure for the exercise of business activities and other provisions”, Law 4310/2014 on “Research, Technical Development & Innovation”, Law 4316/2014 on “Establishment of a dementia observatory, improvement of natal care, regulations of issues of the Ministry of Health competence and other provisions”, Law 4342/2015 on “Pension provisions and Incorporation of Directive 2012/27/EU as amended by Directive 2013/12/EU”, Law 4484/2017 “Transposition of Directive (EU) 2016/881 into Greek Law and other provisions” and Law 4512/2018 “Provisions regarding the implementation of the structural reforms of the Economic Adjustment Program and other provisions”).
      3. Law 3908/2011 “Aid for Private Investments for the Financial Development, Entrepreneurship and Regional Cohesion” (as supplemented by Law 4399/2016 on “Institutional framework for the establishment of Private Investment Aid schemes for the regional and economic development of the country – Establishment of Development Council and other provisions”).

      In addition Enterprise Greece is the official agency of the Greek State, under the supervision of the Ministry of Economy and Development, to promote investment in Greece and exports from Greece. The Investor Ombudsman, which was established by Law 4146/2013 (“Creation of a Development-friendly Environment for Strategic and Private Investments”), is an impartial mediator, who provides services upon investors’ request without a fee.

    Awards

  23. 23.

    Please provide a list of any available arbitration awards or cases initiated involving this country’s investment treaties.

    1. Awards

      Leaf Tobacco A Michaelides SA and Greek-Albanian Leaf Tobacco & Co SA v Republic of Albania (ICSID Case No. ARB/95/1) (Following a settlement agreed by the parties, the proceeding discontinued at the request of the claimants)

      Laskaridis Shipping Co LTD, Lavinia Corporation, A K Laskaridis and P K Laskaridis v Ukraine (UNCITRAL) (The case has been settled)

      Club Hotel Loutraki SA and Casinos Austria International Holding GMBH v Republic of Serbia (ICSID Case No ARB/11/4) (The Tribunal issued a procedural order taking note of the discontinuance of the proceeding)

      Ioannis Kardassopoulos v Georgia (ICSID Case No. ARB/05/18)

      Spyridon Roussalis v Romania (ICSID Case No. ARB/06/1)

      Pantechniki SA Contractors & Engineers v Republic of Albania (ICSID Case No. ARB/07/21)

      Tradex Hellas SA v Republic of Albania (ICSID Case No. ARB/94/2)

      Mytilineos Holdings v Republic of Serbia (I) (UNCITRAL)

      Mamidoil Jetoil Greek Petroleum Products Societe Anonyme SA v Republic of Albania (ICSID Case No. ARB/11/24)

      Poštová banka, a.s. and Istrokapital SE v Hellenic Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/13/8)

      Middle East Cement Shipping and Handling Co v Arab Republic of Egypt (ICSID Case No. ARB/99/6)

      Mytilineos Holdings v Republic of Serbia (II) (UNCITRAL)

      Marfin Investment Group Holdings S.A., Alexandros Bakatselos and others v. Republic of Cyprus (ICSID Case No. ARB/13/27)

      Pending proceedings

      Cyprus Popular Bank v Hellenic Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/14/16)

      Bank of Cyprus Public Company Limited v Hellenic Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/17/4)

      Theodoros Adamakopoulos, Ilektra Adamantidou, Vasileios Adamopoulos and others v Republic of Cyprus (ICSID Case No. ARB/15/49)

      Artashes Rafikovich Amalyan v Russian Federation (UNCITRAL)

      J&P-AVAX SA v Lebanese Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/16/29)

      Iskandar Safa and Akram Safa v Hellenic Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/16/20)

    Reading List

  24. 24.

    Please provide a list of any articles or books that discuss this country’s investment treaties.

    1. Stelios N Kousoulis Arbitration Law-Handbook-Analysis and Interpretation of the articles of the Law (Sakkoulas Publications 2004).

      Stelios N Kousoulis Arbitration Law (Sakkoulas Publications 2006).

      Anna P Mantakou The Arbitration Agreement Convention on International Transactions (Sakkoulas Publications 1998).

Authors

Interested in contributing to this Know-how?

E-mail our Co-Publishing Manager


GAR know-how provides reliable cross-jurisdictional insight to help cement the building blocks of international practice. In this section, select experienced practitioners answer commonly asked questions for key jurisdictions so allowing readers to be better-placed to solve the challenges of their working days.

All Jurisdiction