GREECE Trends and Developments Contributed by: John Dryllerakis, Claire Sergaki and Vasileios Plakoulas, Dryllerakis Law Firm
ties with a likelihood of causing harm. The activities of arbitrators and the usage of AI by them is classified as a “high-risk” economic activity as per Recital 61, which provides that “AI systems intended to be used by alternative dispute resolution bodies for [the pur - poses of the administration of justice and democratic processes] should also be considered to be high-risk when the outcomes of the alternative dispute resolu - tion proceedings produce legal effects for the parties”. Lastly, the growing use of AI is also expected to give rise to a new wave of disputes. For this reason, the AAA provides for special arbitration clauses for con - tracts that include the “design, development, license, sale, or use of artificial intelligence (AI), machine learn - ing, large language model, or generative AI systems, tools, or products”, whereas the Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services (JAMS) has issued its very own specific set of rules governing disputes involving AI systems. Sanctions-related arbitration The surge of EU sanctions against Russia, the expan - sion of US trade sanctions against states such as Iran and Iraq, and the continuation of economic meas - ures against the Republic of China and Cuba are now affecting the Greek international arbitration landscape. Greek businesses and investors involved in cross- border transactions are encountering challenges due to the complex web of sanctions regimes. The involve - ment of a sanctioned person as a party in international arbitration can introduce significant complications. Restrictions on financial transactions and banking operations can directly hinder the payment of arbitra - tion costs and arbitrators’ fees. Arbitrators themselves may be required to obtain authorisation from the competent regulatory bodies before accepting their appointment, so as to avoid exposure to secondary sanctions. Similar compli - ance hurdles exist for arbitral institutions, which must secure the necessary approvals to proceed with man - aging proceedings involving sanctioned parties. Even lawyers representing clients subject to sanctions face a unique set of hurdles, as their legal services may fall within the scope of regulatory restrictions and could require prior authorisation from competent authori -
ties. Securing such permissions is essential not only to ensure that the sanctioned party maintains effective access to justice, but also to uphold the fundamental principle of procedural fairness and equality between the parties. In many instances, sanctions themselves become the central issue in disputes brought before arbitral tribu - nals. International case law varies in its approach to whether such matters can be resolved through arbi - tration. Another complex legal question concerns the impact of sanctions on contractual performance. Specifically, there is ongoing debate over whether sanctions-relat - ed non-performance may be interpreted as impos - sibility of performance, as an unforeseen change of circumstances or, lastly, as force majeure – each of which could potentially justify the suspension of con - tractual obligations. The standards of independence and impartiality One of the primary reasons Greek parties favour arbitration is their ability to select arbitrators. This advantage, however, could be seen as a drawback if the fundamental principles of arbitrator impartiality and independence are not strictly complied with. The recent surge in social media usage, easy cross-cul - tural communication and the proliferation of various forms of media and entertainment have introduced numerous challenges concerning the maintenance of these principles. The recent wave of disqualifica - tion applications against party-appointed arbitrators provides strong evidence in this regard, highlighting how arbitral parties have become ever more attuned to even subtle signs of bias. To somewhat regulate said matters and provide general guidance, while also ensuring the integrity of arbitration as a means of dispute resolution, the International Bar Association (IBA) recently updated its Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest in International Arbitration, incorporating some notable amendments. For instance, a mere relationship via social media of two persons (ie, an arbitrator and a party’s counsel) shall not be deemed to create any conflict of interest (and is thus categorised under the updated “Green List”). However, an arbitrator who currently serves, or
306 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook