GREECE Trends and Developments Contributed by: Dimitris Babiniotis, Zepos & Yannopoulos
attention due to the global rise of cryptocurrencies and their increasing use in commercial transactions. In this case, the petitioner sought the recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitral award that required payment in Bitcoin. The court had to consider whether such an award could be enforced under Greek law, especially in light of public policy concerns. Legal framework The recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in Greece is governed by the 1958 Conven - tion on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the “New York Convention”) and the Greek Code of Civil Procedure. Under these frame - works, a foreign arbitral award may be refused rec - ognition if it is contrary to Greek (international) public policy. Public policy and cryptocurrency Public policy is a broad and often nebulous concept that encompasses the fundamental principles and values of a legal system. In the context of cryptocur - rency, several public policy concerns arise, including the following. • Legal status of cryptocurrency – in Greece, Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies are not recognised as legal tender. This lack of recognition raises questions about the enforceability of obligations denominated in such currencies. • Financial stability and regulation – cryptocurrencies pose significant challenges to financial regulation and stability. The anonymous nature of crypto - currency transactions can facilitate tax evasion, money laundering, and other illicit activities, which are concerns for regulators. • Consumer protection – the volatility of cryptocur - rency prices can pose risks to consumers and businesses. Ensuring that transactions are con - ducted in a stable and predictable currency is a key aspect of public policy. Court’s decision The Agrinio court refused to recognise and enforce the arbitral award on the grounds that requiring payment in Bitcoin was contrary to Greek public policy. The court noted the following.
• Lack of legal recognition – Bitcoin is not recog - nised as legal tender in Greece and transactions involving Bitcoin are not considered legally binding. • Regulatory concerns – the use of Bitcoin raises significant regulatory issues, particularly concern - ing tax evasion and financial stability. • Public policy violation – enforcing an award that mandates payment in Bitcoin would violate the fundamental principles of the Greek legal system, particularly those related to financial regulation and consumer protection. Implications for arbitration and commercial transactions This decision has significant implications for both arbitration and commercial practice in Greece. Key takeaways include the following. • Drafting arbitration clauses – parties to arbitration agreements should carefully consider the choice of currency for payment obligations. Given the court’s stance, specifying a recognised legal tender is advisable. • Cryptocurrency transactions – businesses engag - ing in transactions involving cryptocurrencies should be aware of the potential legal and regula - tory challenges. In jurisdictions such as Greece, the enforceability of such transactions may be problematic. • Public policy as a defence – public policy remains a potent defence against the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards. Parties should be mindful of the public policy considerations in the jurisdictions where they seek enforcement. Greece’s Supreme Administrative Court judgment No 251/2022 – broader implications Greece’s Supreme Administrative Court (ie, Greece’s Conseil d’État ), in its judgment No 251/2022, addressed the issue of the enforceability of arbitration agreements in the context of administrative law. This decision has significant implications for the enforce - ability of foreign arbitral awards, especially within the framework of EU law and the principles established by the CJEU’s decision in Achmea BV v Slovak Republic (Case C-284/16) (“ Achmea ”).
234 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook