Eva Litina, Athens, Greece
Dispute Resolution Section scholarship winning paper 2017
This paper explores the conflicts of legal cultures and systems that come to the surface during enforcement proceedings of foreign arbitral awards. It first discusses the current international legal regime in enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. Then, it examines the receptiveness of a civil law jurisdiction towards arbitral awards issued under common law, using Greece as a case study. For this analysis, a specific reference to maritime arbitral awards is appropriate, given the position of Greece as a major shipping nation, which results in many enforcement proceedings of maritime arbitral awards. Apart from the general attitude of the Greek courts towards foreign arbitral awards, two specific common law institutions that have been addressed by Greek jurisprudence are further analyzed: punitive damages and anti-suit injunctions. This analysis aims to throw some light on the stance of the Greek courts towards arbitral awards hailing from common law systems and the difficulties faced in such enforcement proceedings.
Enforcement of foreign arbitral awards: The international legal regime
The role of state courts in enforcement of arbitration awards
Effective international arbitration depends on successful enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in a simple and fast procedure.1 The successful party will have to resort to the courts of another country for the enforcement of the award. The New York Convention (hereinafter NYC), the most significant reason for the success of international commercial and maritime arbitration, applies to the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in 157 states.2
Even though the NYC has facilitated enforcement of arbitral awards, it has not resolved all the issues. As it has been a long time since the NYC was signed, it is a question to what extent is this convention outdated. Renegotiating such an instrument to better respond to the current needs of the parties in international arbitration would be a demanding and time-consuming project.
The state where enforcement proceedings take place may refuse enforcement of awards issued under a different legal system or tradition on public policy grounds. The notion of public policy highlights the tension between the international obligations to enforce an arbitration award and the vital interests of the forum to ensure enforcement of its public or criminal laws, as well as the essence of the role of courts in international arbitration.3 Striking the balance between uniformity in the application of the Convention against the national courts’discretion to set aside an award on public policy grounds can be a difficult exercise.4 Apart from these policy issues, such differences in enforcement proceedings are of paramount importance to the parties and their counsels, since they seriously affect the duration, cost and outcome of their disputes.5
This issue is also particularly relevant to maritime arbitration awards, which are of special interest for the country that we will use as a case study, Greece.The resolution of a specific maritime issue requires resort to the complete set of rules of every legal system.6 Mandatory rules deriving from public international law treaty instruments, as well as national laws may be applicable.7 Such a system can create clashes among different jurisdictions.While civil law systems have played a major role in international commercial arbitration, maritime arbitration remains closer to common law and common law maritime arbitration centers handle most of the shipping disputes.8 This brings maritime arbitration awards issued in common law systems before civil law courts for enforcement. In this context, conflicts between the Anglo-Saxon and the continental European legal tradition come to the surface. In practice, the narrow construction of public policy by most national courts in both civil and common law jurisdictions sets a limit in the review of foreign arbitral awards.9
At the same time, maritime law has always been characterized by the strong presence of mandatory laws aiming to promote international uniformity.10 There is an amalgam of international conventions on different aspects of maritime law, combining both substantive and procedural matters.11 Even when not directly regulating arbitration, such mandatory rules affect arbitration, as they may from time to time trigger the application of the public policy exception of the NYC to block enforcement.12
The Public Policy Exception under the New York Convention
The NYC leaves some space for review of foreign arbitral awards on the grounds of public policy of the state. In accordance with Article V (2) (b) of the NYC, recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award may also be refused if the competent authority in the country where recognition and enforcement is sought finds that the recognition or enforcement of the award would be contrary to the public policy of that country.
Public policy is a vague principle, which varies from country to country and from time to time.13 Thus, there are differences in the approaches of the states as to the interpretation of public policy and the extent of review of arbitral awards may considerably vary among contracting states.14 Despite the uncertain character of public policy, courts in most jurisdictions have been very reluctant to deny recognition to foreign awards on the basis of the exception.15 Consequently, even if this ground for refusal is often invoked, only seldom is it successful.16
After these general remarks on the public policy exception under the NYC, the focus of our interest will turn to the application of the public policy exception as ground for refusing the enforcement in the Greek case law. As Greek shipping interests dominate the world market, the enforcement of foreign maritime arbitral awards often arises before the Greek courts. Thus, Greek case law presents an opportunity to study the receptiveness of a civil law jurisdiction to enforce foreign arbitral awards, hailing from common law systems.
Areas of conflict between different legal systems: The paradigm of Greece
This study intends to explore, whether cultural differences, being one of the principal reasons for the parties’ initial choice of arbitration, play a role in the later (sometimes unavoidable) stage of enforcement proceedings. Specifically, it aims to draw conclusions about the receptiveness of the Greek courts to enforce foreign arbitral awards hailing from different legal systems and the difficulties arising in these proceedings, which may be of special interest for the shipping industry, as well as for international trade in general. For this study, 130 cases on the application and interpretation of public policy have been used.17
This analysis of Greek case law proceeds in following structure: first, after a short review of the Greek applicable law, the stance of Greek courts towards the public policy exception under the NYC and the review of the merits of the dispute will be explored in order to evaluate the enforcement traits of the Greek courts. Then, the specific solutions given by the Greek courts in actual cases of awards hailing from different legal systems will be reviewed. Specifically, two common law institutions that are illustrative of a conflict between different legal systems, punitive damages and anti-suit injunctions, will be discussed.
The applicable law
In Greece, the provisions for international arbitration are found in Law 2735/1999 on International Commercial Arbitration (LICA), by which Greece adopted the 1985 UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration.18 Greece has ratified the NYC by Legislative Decree 4220/1961 (in force since 14 October 1962) and applies the reciprocity and the commercial reservation. Thus, recognition and enforcement of foreign awards is governed by the provisions of the NYC, which, in accordance with article 28, paragraph 1 of the Greek Constitution, form integral part of Greek law and prevail over any contrary provision.19 The national rules for the recognition and enforcement of foreign awards are found in LICA, article 36, which refers directly to the NYC.
Under article 34, paragraph 2b (recital bb) of LICA, an arbitral award may be annulled, if it is contrary to international public policy, as defined in Article 33 of the Greek Civil Code. Thus, Greek law defines the standard of review, which is international public policy.20 The courts of first instance have the competence to decide on the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards.21
Case law on enforcement of foreign arbitral awards
The interpretation of public policy
The distinction between domestic and international public policy has been acknowledged by early Greek case law. The Supreme Court has construed, since 1965, a different rule for the involvement of the Greek state in international maritime arbitrations, holding that the formalities provided by the Code of Civil Procedure for the state to enter into arbitration agreements are of domestic public policy nature and do not limit the competence of the state to enter into international agreements providing for arbitration to be held abroad.22 Since then, the distinction between domestic and international public policy continues to be the prevailing view of the Greek courts.
Specifically, the Supreme Court has interpreted international public policy as follows: “International public policy consists of fundamental rules and principles, which prevail at a given time in a country and which reflect the social, economic, civil, political, religious, moral and other perceptions that govern its standard of living and constitute a barrier to the applicability of foreign rules within the domestic territory when this applicability may disrupt the aforementioned prevailing standard of living in this country.”23
The notion of Greek international public policy has been construed in accordance with international best practices.24 The Court of Appeals describes it as a flexible, vague principle that can only be used in exceptional cases.25 The judge has to make a careful fact-based determination of public policy on a case-by-case basis.26 Over time public policy is subject to changes, which are usually reflected in the amendments of the legal provisions.27
No review on the merits of the dispute
Greek courts review only compatibility with public policy and not the substance of the award during enforcement proceedings.28 The Supreme Court has repeatedly stressed that the courts may not block enforcement on the ground of errors of law.29 The mere fact that Greek law is unaware of a particular foreign legal provision or that the issue is regulated differently in Greek law does not mean that the decision is contrary to public policy.30 The violation of public policy has to be evident from the arbitral award in its entirety, either from the dispositive part or from the reasons of the award.31 The lack of reasons in a foreign award does not violate Greek international public policy.32
The confrontation of Greek courts with common law concepts
It should be noted from the outset that the Greek courts have exercised their powers regarding public policy with great parsimony.33 Earlier case law has engaged with the issue of prohibition of over-insurance with the Supreme Court blocking the enforcement of a London maritime arbitration award that allowed for coverage exceeding the actual cash value of the vessel.34 More recent case law faced the controversial issues of punitive damages and anti-suit injunctions, further analyzed in the subsequent paragraphs.
The stance of Greek courts towards punitive damages awards
The remedy of punitive damages is one of the most representative areas of conflicts among the European and Anglo-Saxon legal systems. Greek courts held that awards of punitive damages are not in principle violations of international public policy, provided that they are not excessive or disproportionate.35 The Supreme Court, after having acknowledged that Greek law provides for remedies comparable to punitive damages,36 held that foreign arbitral awards ordering punitive damages have to pass the proportionality test and any potential violation of public policy is considered on a case-by-case basis.37 The Supreme Court has also ordered partial enforcement of the award in cases of excessive punitive damages.38
This approach is very pragmatic and quite progressive, as it does not ignore the legal reality that in an era of globalization, the interaction among different legal cultures is inevitable. The conflicts and challenges in the enforcement proceedings of punitive damages awards are also clearly reflected in the dissenting opinions of the Supreme Court.39 The Court correctly identified the underlying legal principles and appropriately balanced the apparent commonalities, as well as the divergences arising out of the different legal systems. However, there is an inherent contradiction in this rationale: if punitive damages are not incompatible with international public policy, why does the court have to further check excessiveness?40 As it can be expected, such a compromise approach41 does not resolve all the issues.
From a policy perspective, it is understandable that the Supreme Court wishes to maintain some control over the amount of punitive damages, given their uncertain and controversial character even in the Anglo-Saxon legal traditions.42 However, in order to apply the proportionality test, the enforcing authority will have to enter into the restricted area of the merits.43
Furthermore, the criteria on how to determine the excessiveness of punitive damages lack specificity. This leaves the lower courts without guidance on what constitutes disproportionality.44 Therefore, the stance of the Supreme Court in this respect does not lead to clear-cut and predictable outcomes and thus could be characterized as less arbitration-friendly. However, in such controversial areas, where vague principles such as public policy come into play, judicial discretion is at the end inevitable and potentially even desirable.
The stance of Greek courts towards anti-suit injunctions
Parallel proceedings in arbitration and court can lead to increased costs and conflicting decisions, which complicate enforcement proceedings.45 Against this backdrop, anti-suit injunctions can be a useful remedy to prevent foreign proceedings started in breach of an arbitration agreement.46 This practice, which has been employed predominantly by common law state courts, but is also within the powers of arbitrators,47 has created a field of conflict among the civil and common law legal systems. Especially regarding anti-suit injunctions issued by English courts, this has also been an area where the European notion of mutual trust has been tested and where, further developments are expected, in the light of Brexit.48
Anti-suit injunctions as a measure to enforce arbitration agreements can be issued by English courts, which, depending on the terms that the United Kingdom will negotiate for its exit from the European Union (EU), may not be bound by EU regulations and the European Court of Justice (ECJ) judgments anymore,49 as well as by other common law jurisdictions and arbitrators. As these injunctions travel and reach the courts of civil law countries, the concept of public policy comes again into play and it will be the judge who will have the final say in this legal battle.
The maritime bench of the Court of Piraeus faced the issue of anti-suit injunctions from English courts.50 Citing articles 8, paragraph 1 and 20 paragraph 1 of the Greek Constitution and article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights regarding the right of fair trial, the Court held that the enforcement of such an award is against public policy. As a general principle, a foreign judgment or arbitral award, which restricts a party’s access to justice directly, in the form of an anti-suit injunction, will be considered contrary to Greek public policy.51 In cases of indirect restrictions of a party’s access to justice, by the imposition of excessive costs, Greek courts appear to be more flexible, considering them on a case-by-case basis.52
The criticism against this approach has been that the prohibition of suit before the Greek courts does not necessarily violate the party’s access to justice, since it can still pursue its claim before the courts that issued the anti-suit injunction.53 Especially in the light of the Brussels Regulation and the underlying principles of mutual trust and equality among the courts of the EU member states, it is questionable whether the concern of the Greek courts is valid. It remains to be seen how the political and legal developments in this issue will affect the stance of the Greek courts.
Conflicts of legal cultures and systems, hidden or apparent, play a major role in international arbitration. This paper aims to contribute to a better understanding of such differences, by using Greece as a case study. As a general observation, several pro-arbitration enforcement trends can be detected in the Greek case law. When confronted with common law concepts, the Greek courts have adopted quite progressive and flexible interpretations. However, there are still steps to be taken towards a greater degree of receptiveness to foreign arbitral awards and foreign legal institutions in general. Finally, this case study underlines the essence of the role of judge. Despite the continuous efforts for legal clarity and legal certainty, the judge has the final say for the interpretation of vague principles, such as public policy. While this paper throws light in some of these issues, further research is necessary, in order to increase awareness of the potential areas of conflicts and suggest strategies to address them.
1 Anton Maurer, The Public Policy Exception under the New York Convention (JurisNet 2013) 2
2 <http://www.uncitral.org/uncitral/en/uncitral_texts/arbitration/NYConvention_status.html> accessed 6 May 2017
3 Marc Blessing, ‘Mandatory rules of law versus party autonomy in international arbitration’  14 J Intl Arb 23, 40; see also Shen Wei, Rethinking the New York Convention. A Law and Economics Approach(Intersentia 2013) 225
4 ‘Chapter 26 Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards’ inJulian Lew and Loukas Mistelis et al, Comparative International Commercial Arbitration (Kluwer L Int 2003) 731
5 Sigvard Jarvin, ‘Leading Arbitration Seats- A Comparative View’ in Stefan Frommel and Barry Rider (eds), Conflicting Legal Cultures in Commercial Arbitration (Kluwer L Intl 1999) 61
6 Ignacio Arroyo, ‘Concept, Sources, and International Organizations relating to Shipping Law’ in David J Attard (ed), The IMLI Manual on International Maritime Law(Volume II, OUP 2016) 4
7 Brian Harris, Ridley’s Law of the Carriage of Goods by Land, Sea and Air (8th edn, Sweet & Maxwell, 2010) 254
8 Miriam Goldbyand Loukas Mistelis, ‘Introduction’ in Miriam Goldby and Loukas Mistelis (eds), The Role of Arbitration in Shipping Law (OUP 2016) 3
9 Gary B Born, International Commercial Arbitration (2nd edn, Kluwer L Intl 2014) 3670
10 Ignacio Arroyo, ‘Concept, Sources, and International Organizations relating to Shipping Law’ in David J Attard (ed), The IMLI Manual on International Maritime Law(Volume II, OUP 2016) 5
11 Fabrizio Marrella, ‘Unity and Diversity in International Arbitration: The case of Maritime Arbitration’ (2005) 20 American U Intl L Rev 1056, 1068. For example, the United Nations Convention on the Carriage of Goods Wholly or Partly by Sea (Rotterdam Rules) contains jurisdiction and arbitration chapters.
12 An illustrative example of the different approaches that different legal systems may adopt, even when uniform international rules apply is the statute of limitations provided for in article 3(6) of the Hague-Visby rules. State courts may refuse enforcement of an arbitral award that ignores the aforementioned statute of limitations, considering such a provision as part of the international public policy, see Antonios Tsavdaridis, International Maritime Arbitration (Sakoulas Athina- Thessaloniki 1999) 337
13 Anton Maurer, The Public Policy Exception under the New York Convention (JurisNet 2013) 57; see also Reinmar Wolff, ‘Article V(2)(b)’ in Reinmar Wolff (ed), New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards of 10 June 1958 Commentary (CH Beck Hart Nomos 2012) 408
14 Sigvard Jarvin, ‘Leading Arbitration Seats- A Comparative View’ in Stefan Frommel and Barry Rider (eds), Conflicting legal cultures in commercial arbitration (Kluwer L Intl1999) 61
15 Gary Born, International Commercial Arbitration (Kluwer L Intl 2014) 3667
16 Reinmar Wolff, ‘Article V(2)(b)’ in Reinmar Wolff (ed), New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards of 10 June 1958 Commentary (CH Beck Hart Nomos 2012) 405
17 More than one thousand cases on arbitration from 1965 up to today have been collected and their study is a helpful tool for the evaluation of the stance of the Greek Courts towards arbitration in general.The collection comes from the Greek commercial legal database NOMOS and the Greek law journals. However, for thepurposes of this paper, we have selected the case law most relevant tothe application and interpretation of public policy as a ground for refusing enforcement of an arbitral award.In order to better understand the development of the principle of Greek public policy, the selected cases include both annulment proceedings of domestic arbitration awards and enforcement proceedings of international arbitration awards, regardless of the type of dispute. However, the main focus of our analysis will be the Greek case law dealing with international arbitration, and primarily, maritime arbitration.The following abbreviations are used for Greek case law: Supreme Court (SC), Court of Appeals (CA), Multi-member First Instance Court (MFIC), Single-member First Instance Court (SFIC). For the courts of Athens, Piraeus and Thessaloniki the aforementioned abbreviations will be followed by letters A, P and T respectively. All the decisions can be retrieved by the Greek commercial legal database NOMOS, unless a different source is specified in the footnote.
18 For a more detailed review of the Greek arbitration law see Antonios Tsavdaridis, ‘Greece, Getting the Deal Through-Arbitration 2016’ in Gerhard Wegen and Stephan Wilske (eds), Arbitration (L Business research 2016) 180-187
19 With respect to arbitral awards from the United States of America, the Friendship, Commerce, and Navigation Treaty between Greece and the USA, applies and supersedes the NYC as special law. In accordance with Article 6, paragraph 2 of this Treaty, awards, which are final and enforceable under the laws of the place where rendered, shall be deemed conclusive in enforcement proceedings brought before the courts of competent jurisdiction of either Party, and shall be entitled to be declared enforceable by such courts, except where found contrary to public policy. See also SC 340/1998 applying this Treaty.
20 Athanasios Kaisis, Public policy aspects in recognition and enforcement of foreign court judgments and foreign arbitral awards, (Sakoulas Athens-Thessaloniki 2003) 164. For an analysis of a similar provision in the French Code of Civil Procedure seeAnton Maurer, The Public Policy Exception under the New York Convention (JurisNet 2013) 97
21 Greek Code of Civil Procedure, Article 905, paragraph 1
22 SC 565/1965 (1966) IZ Epitheorisi Emporikou Dikaiou 289
23 SC 102/2012,SC 2273/2009, SC 2234/2009, SC 11/2009, SC 1665/2009 (specifying provisions that fall within the scope of international public policy of Article 33 of the Greek Civil Code), SC 1066/2007, 1532/2008, SC in full plenary 6/1990, 17/1999, 1572/81, SC 1670/1980
24 Reinmar Wolff, ‘Article V(2)(b)’ in Reinmar Wolff (ed), New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards of 10 June 1958 Commentary (CH Beck Hart Nomos 2012) 412 suggests that such international best practices have already been formed, although they are not precise.
28 SC 954/1984, 899/1985, 65/1997, 1561/1998, 1066/2007, SC 1657/2014, see also Athanasios Kaisis, Public policy aspects in recognition and enforcement of foreign court judgments and foreign arbitral awards, (Sakoulas Athens-Thessaloniki 2003) 195
29 Courts consistently refuse to review the merits: CAP 747/2012, CA of Lamia 10/2013, CAA 29/2010, CAP 738/2010
30 SC in full plenary 17/1999
31 SC 102/2012, SC 1377/2011, SC 1712/2008, CAA 595/2014,CAA 2382/2011, CAA 1455/2010,CAA 8445/2005, CAA 7725/2000, CAT 1950/1993
32 SC 1665/2009, SC, 1618/2007, SC 1273/2003, SC 149/1986, CAA 6886/1984, CAA 1466/1983, CAA 2494/1975, CA of Patra 469/1974, CAA 5227/1974, CAA 2190/1972. A slightly different approach is expressed in SC 1665/2009, embraced also by the older jurisprudence of the Supreme Court and other decisions, suggesting that the lack of reasons violates public policy when it aims at a disguise breach of the right to fair trail or leads to a resolution of the dispute that violates public policy (CAT 451/2000, CAT 7/1987, SC 1134/1975)
33 The courts of Piraeus constantly enforce London maritime arbitration awards: SFICP 2767/2010, CAP 738/2010, CAP 30/2012, CAP 1206/1986, SFICP 1015/1986, MFICP 436/1985 and more generally Greek courts historically have appeared willing to enforce London arbitration awards: CAT 871/1998, CAA 6815/1994, SC 460/1990, CAA 4356/1989, CAA 1466/1983, CAA 2494/1975, CAA 5227/1974, CAA 2190/1972
34 SC in full plenary 6/1990 and 9/1990, SC 1469/1988, CAA 2135/1987. For an analysis of this issue see Ioannis Rokas, ‘Note: Prohibition of enrichment and evaluation of the insured property’, (1987) Nomiko Vima 1411
35 SC (in full plenary) 17/1999, SC 1260/2002, SC 102/2012, CAA 4332/2011, CAP 30/2012, SFIC of Thiva 160/2010, SFICT 13432/2012. The SC 17/1999 was the first judgment that addressed the issue of punitive damages in the context of a U.S. court judgment. In 1260/2002, the SC established the same principles for the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards imposing punitive damages. See alsoAthanasios Kaisis, Public policy aspects in recognition and enforcement of foreign court judgments and foreign arbitral awards, (Sakoulas Athens-Thessaloniki 2003) 101, 198
36 Such damages have either a contractual foundation (Articles 404-409 of the Greek Civil Code allowing parties to insert penalty clauses in their contract) or are expressly provided for by special laws, such as Law 2251/1994 on Consumer Protection allowing for recovery of a higher amount than actual damages.
37 SC 17/1999 and SC 1260/2002 refer to the criteria on which judgment on excessiveness will be based: type and seriousness of the debtor’s wrongful behavior, the degree of culpability, the interests of the creditor, moral and financial condition of the parties.
38 SC 17/1999, SC 102/2012
39 Apart from the prevailing view, two dissenting opinions were formed. The first was the complete rejection of punitive damages awards, as they violate Greek public policy. The second was the opposite, i.e. that the principle of full compensation cannot be considered as part of the international public policy and thus punitive damages are not contrary to public policy.
40 Ioannis Karakostas, ‘Note I’ (2000) Dikaio Epiheiriseon & Etairion 183
41 Evangelos Vasilakakis, ‘Enforcement of foreign arbitral awards of punitive damages’ (2006) Dikaio Epiheiriseon & Etairion 459, 463
42 Evangelos Vasilakakis, ‘Enforcement of foreign arbitral awards of punitive damages’ (2006) Dikaio Epiheiriseon & Etairion 459
43 Ioannis Karakostas, ‘Note I’ (2000) Dikaio Epiheiriseon & Etairion 183; see also Cedric Vanleenhove, Punitive Damages in Private International Law: Lessons for the European Union (Intersentia Ltd 2016) 210 on the prohibition of révision au fond in the enforcement of U.S. punitive damages judgments.
44 For an analysis of the same issues arising from this approach also adopted by the French Supreme Court, see Cedric Vanleenhove, Punitive Damages in Private International Law: Lessons for the European Union (Intersentia Ltd 2016) 133
45 Yvonne Baatz, ‘Incorporation of a charterparty arbitration clause into a bill of lading and its effect on third parties’ in Miriam Goldbyand Loukas Mistelis (eds), The Role of Arbitration in Shipping Law (OUP 2016) 124
46 Clare Ambrose and Karen Maxwell, London Maritime Arbitration (3rd edn, Informa 2009) 110
47 Laurent Levy, ‘Anti-suit injunctions issued by arbitrators’ in Emmanuel Gaillard (ed), Anti-suit Injunctions in International Arbitration (JurisNet 2005) 121
48 In the context of the EU, anti-suit injunctions had been considered contrary to the Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters  OJ L 12/1 (Brussels I Regulation) by the European Court of Justice. The debate revived after the Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters  OJ L 351/1 (Brussels Recast Regulation) and is still open in the light of Brexit. See Clare Ambrose and Karen Maxwell, London Maritime Arbitration (3rd edn, Informa 2009) 109. For the latest developments on the issue see Kate Davies and Valeriya Kirsey, ‘Anti-Suit Injunctions in Support of London Seated Arbitrations Post-Brexit: Are All Things New Just Well-Forgotten Past?’  33(17) Journal of International Arbitration 501-520 and Sara Masters and Belinda McRae, ‘What does Brexit mean for the Brussels regime?’  33(7) Journal of International Arbitration 483-500
49 Kate Davies and Valeriya Kirsey, ‘Anti-Suit Injunctions in Support of London Seated Arbitrations Post-Brexit: Are All Things New Just Well-Forgotten Past?’  33(17) Journal of International Arbitration 509
50 CAP 110/2004, CAP 31/2012
51 Stelios Stamatopoulos and Panagiotis Giannopoulos, ‘Enforcement issues of English judgments imposing damages in case of pursuing proceedings in Greek courts in the Greek legal order’, (2015) Epitheorisi Politikis Dikonomias 145, 163
52 See SC 2273/2009 and CAT 1157/2008 on the enforcement of an arbitral award from Norway on a shipbuilding dispute. The Supreme Court concluded that the judicial costs imposed to the losing party were not excessive in view of the value of the claims and counterclaims, the complexity of the dispute, the duration of the arbitration proceedings and the number of documents exchanged by the parties. SC 1066/2007 found that the costs imposed by English arbitral awards were not excessive. SFIC 20871/2013, unpublished, found that judicial costs were high, but not excessive in view of the amount in dispute, in Apostolos Anthimos, Foreign court judgments and arbitral awards- Recognition and enforcement in Greece (Sakoulas Athina Thessaloniki 2014) 161
53 Haris Meidanis, ‘Notes on CAP 110/2004’ (2005) Dike International 835, 840, Haris Meidanis, ‘Anti-suit injunction in England and the Regulation 44/2001 Conflict (and comparison) of two legal traditions’ (2005) Dikaio Epiheiriseon & Etairion 152, 155
Eva Litina is a PhD candidate at the University of the Aegean in Chios, Greece, and received her Master of Laws from New York University School of Law. She has worked in Greek law firms and as a legal advisor to Greece's Deputy Minister of Finance.