Greece

Arbitration in Greece benefits from a modern legislative framework aligned with the UNCITRAL Model Law (2006), following the enactment of the International Commercial Arbitration Act of Greece (Law 5016/2023 (ICAAG)). Greece offers a pro-arbitration judiciary, experienced arbitrators and increasing institutional support. The country is an attractive forum for disputes connected to Southeast Europe, shipping, energy, infrastructure, construction, commercial transactions, corporate governance, and cross-border investment matters. In recent years, Greece has also developed a clearer policy of supporting arbitration as part of its broader strategy to position itself as a regional commercial and logistics hub for the Eastern Mediterranean and the Balkans.

1.1 Advantages

The advantages of choosing Greece as a seat or venue of arbitration can be grouped under the headings of modern legislation, judicial support, sectoral expertise, cost-efficiency and procedural flexibility.

• Modern law aligned with UNCITRAL Model Law (2006). ICAAG closely follows UNCITRAL Model Law and incorporates its latest developments, particularly in relation to interim measures, the principle of competence-competence and electronic communications. This brings Greece into line with leading Model Law jurisdictions and ensures that international users are operating in a familiar legal environment with clear statutory guidance on the main phases of the arbitral process.
• Strong adherence to due process and party autonomy. Greek arbitration law and case law place primary emphasis on party autonomy. Parties are free to choose the seat, the applicable law, the language, the number and qualifications of arbitrators, and the procedural rules. Due process guarantees — such as equal treatment of the parties and the right to be heard — are firmly entrenched and are interpreted in harmony with the ECHR and EU standards.
• Pro-enforcement approach by courts. Greek courts generally adopt a pro-enforcement stance toward both domestic and foreign awards. The grounds for non-recognition are interpreted restrictively and in line with Article V of the New York Convention (NYC). The set-aside remedy is understood as an exceptional mechanism, not as an appeal on the merits, reinforcing the finality of arbitral awards.
• Access to specialised arbitrators in shipping, energy, construction, corporate and finance. Piraeus is one of the world’s leading maritime centres, and Greek practitioners have a long tradition in charterparty, bill of lading, shipbuilding and ship finance disputes. Similarly, Greece’s role in regional gas and energy corridors, as well as major EU-funded infrastructure projects, has given rise to a sophisticated community of arbitrators, experts and counsel in construction, engineering and project finance arbitration.
• Competitive costs compared to traditional arbitration hubs. The overall cost of arbitration in Greece — arbitrator fees, institutional administrative fees and local counsel fees — tends to be significantly lower than in London, Paris or Geneva. This makes Athens and Piraeus attractive seats especially for medium-value disputes or for parties from neighbouring jurisdictions looking for a neutral but cost-efficient forum.
• Availability of institutions including the Athens Mediation & Arbitration Organization (EODID), the Athens Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ACCI), Piraeus Association for Maritime Arbitration (PAMA) and others. The presence of multiple local institutions with specialist profiles (commercial, maritime, technical, labour) offers parties a broad choice of rules and fee structures. These institutions increasingly adopt international best practices in case management, appointment processes and ethical guidelines.
• Strong protection of confidentiality. Although confidentiality is not regulated in a single codified provision, Greek practice and institutional rules generally treat arbitration as a private process. Courts also show sensitivity to confidentiality when awards are submitted in set-aside or enforcement proceedings, limiting publicity to what is strictly necessary.

Beyond these items, Greece also benefits from its geographical location and infrastructure: Athens is easily accessible from Europe, the Middle East and North Africa, and the country’s modern conference and hearing facilities are suitable for complex multiparty arbitrations with international participants.

1.2 Disadvantages and common pitfalls

Despite its many advantages, parties should be aware of certain disadvantages and potential pitfalls when arbitrating in Greece:

• Court delays in some ancillary matters (though improving). Although reforms and digitalisation of the courts have improved timelines, delays may still occur, particularly in overloaded courts or in complex set-aside proceedings. Parties should factor into their strategy that court assistance for interim measures, enforcement or annulment, may not always be immediate.
• Limited experience with anti-suit injunctions. Due to EU law restrictions (notably the Allianz SpA v West Tankers Inc (C-185/07) (West Tankers) jurisprudence), Greek courts do not issue anti-suit injunctions. Parties who are used to common-law remedies to restrain foreign proceedings may find this restrictive and may need to rely on other instruments such as lis pendens rules or tribunal-issued orders.
• Less international visibility than major hubs such as London or Paris. While Greek law is modern and supportive, Greece still does not enjoy the same level of brand recognition as older arbitration centres. Some parties may initially prefer more established seats out of habit or perceived prestige, even when Greece would be objectively suitable.
• Public policy considerations may restrict enforcement in exceptional cases. As in all jurisdictions, Greek courts retain the power to refuse enforcement of awards contrary to international public policy. Issues such as corruption, serious due process violations, or illegality in the underlying transaction may trigger public policy scrutiny. Although such refusals are rare and standards are stringent, parties should draft their agreements and conduct proceedings to minimise such risks.

From a practical viewpoint, a further pitfall is the occasional mismatch in expectations between foreign parties and local procedural habits, for example, in relation to document production or the taking of evidence. Careful procedural planning and explicit reference to international guidelines (e.g. IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence) can mitigate such issues.

1.3 Distinctive features

Greece’s arbitration regime also exhibits several distinctive features:

• Greece maintains a rebuttable presumption of arbitrability (Article 3(4), ICAAG). Rather than adopting a restrictive or enumerated approach to arbitrability, the ICAAG presumes that disputes are arbitrable unless expressly excluded. This is a strong policy signal in favour of arbitration and reduces the scope for arguments that specific commercial matters fall outside arbitral jurisdiction.
• Arbitrators may order interim measures directly (Article 25, ICAAG). The power of arbitral tribunals to issue binding interim measures — combined with the support of state courts in enforcing such measures — means that parties can obtain effective provisional relief without necessarily resorting to domestic proceedings. This may include freezing orders, orders for security, or preservation of evidence.
• The ICAAG provides detailed provisions on consolidation and joinder. These provisions respond to the realities of multiparty and multi-contract disputes, such as large construction projects or corporate group structures. They allow, under certain conditions, for consolidated proceedings or the joinder of additional parties, thereby reducing the risk of inconsistent awards and parallel proceedings.
• Digital signatures and electronic communications are fully recognised. ICAAG is expressly technology friendly. Arbitration agreements and procedural steps can be made or conducted electronically, which facilitates cross-border communication and reduces formalism. It also enables fully virtual or hybrid hearings when appropriate.
• Arbitrators may be held liable only for gross negligence or wilful misconduct. This standard of liability provides arbitrators with a degree of protection necessary for independent decision-making while preserving a remedy in extreme cases of serious misconduct. It aligns with international notions of arbitrator liability and strikes a balance between accountability and independence.

2.1 Legal framework

The ICAAG governs international arbitration. Domestic arbitration remains under Articles 867–903 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CCP). Greece thus maintains, at least for the moment, a dualistic system, though the ICAAG can also be used in domestic arbitrations if the parties so agree or if institutional rules refer to it.

The ICAAG covers all main aspects of international arbitration, including the arbitration agreement, composition and powers of the tribunal, procedural principles, interim measures, taking of evidence, awards, and post-award remedies.

It incorporates standard Model Law concepts such as:

• competence-competence and separability;
• limited grounds for set-aside;
• recognition and enforcement provisions; and
• limited court intervention (“only where so provided”).

2.2 What qualifies under domestic law as “international arbitration”? Is there a specific statute?

Arbitration is international if:

• parties have their places of business in different states; or
• the seat, place of contract performance, or place closely connected to the dispute is abroad.

This definition reflects the functional approach of the Model Law, focusing on the objective elements of the transaction rather than solely on nationality. It allows parties engaged in regional or cross-border trade to benefit from the ICAAG even when Greece is geographically central to the transaction.

2.3 Ratification of the New York Convention

Greece ratified the NYC under Legislative Decree 4220/1961. Reciprocity and commerciality reservations were withdrawn in 1980, meaning that Greece applies the Convention broadly and does not limit it to awards rendered in other contracting states or in “commercial” disputes only. Greek courts consistently rely on the NYC as the primary framework for recognition and enforcement of foreign awards.

2.4 Ratification of the ICSID Convention

Greece is a contracting state to ICSID (Compulsory Law 608/1968). ICSID awards are recognised and enforced as if they were final judgments of Greek courts, without review on the merits. This ensures an additional layer of protection for foreign investors where ICSID jurisdiction is available.

2.5 Other treaties relating to arbitration

Greece is also bound by a number of treaties and instruments relevant to arbitration, including:

• the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT);
• 44 bilateral investment treaties; and
• 73 EU-level investment instruments.

These instruments shape the landscape for investor-state arbitration involving Greece, although the intra-EU dimension has been significantly affected by subsequent Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) case law, as noted below.

2.6 Choice of forum for intra-EU dispute settlement

Following Achmea (C-284/16) and Komstroy (C-741/19), intra-EU investor-state arbitration is not permitted. Greece ratified the 2020 intra-EU Bilaterial Investment Treaty (BIT) termination agreement. As a result, investors from other EU Member States may no longer rely on intra-EU BIT arbitration clauses against Greece and must instead resort to domestic remedies or EU law mechanisms. This development does not affect purely commercial arbitration between EU private parties, which remains valid and fully supported.

2.7 Is the municipal law governing arbitration based on UNCITRAL Model Law?

Yes, ICAAG is aligned with the UNCITRAL Model Law (2006). The Greek legislature deliberately followed the structure and substance of the Model Law, with some targeted innovations (e.g. on arbitrability and interim measures) tailored to national needs.

2.8 Recent amendments or reforms in arbitration laws

ICAAG (2023) modernised arbitration law, arbitrability, including joinder, consolidation, interim measures and digital communications. It also clarified the role of courts in assisting arbitration and underlined the principle of minimal court intervention. The reform is widely regarded as a significant step in upgrading Greece’s attractiveness as a seat and ensuring legislative coherence with comparative practice in other Model Law jurisdictions.

3.1 Presence of local arbitration institutions

• EODID;
• ACCI;
• Hellenic Chamber of Shipping Arbitration;
• PAMA;
• Technical Chamber of Greece (TEE); and
• Organisation for Mediation and Arbitration (OMED, used for collective labour disputes).

These institutions collectively cover a broad spectrum of disputes: general commercial, maritime, engineering and labour. EODID has adopted the most innovative rules in light of international standards, offering provisions on expedited procedures, emergency arbitrators, and online submissions.

3.2 Does the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) have a local office?

No.

3.3 Does the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) have a local office?

No.

3.4 Does the ICC International Court of Arbitration have a local office?

No.

3.5 Does the International Centre for Dispute Resolution (ICDR) have a local office?

No.

3.6 Agreement entered into with local offices of international arbitration institutions

No office standing agreements. Cooperation exists only for events and training. Nevertheless, it is common for Greek practitioners to serve on arbitrator lists of foreign institutions such as the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), the Vienna International Arbitral Centre (VIAC), the World International Property Organization (WIPO) and the Cyprus Arbitration and Mediation Centre (CAMC), amongst others, and for foreign institutions to administer arbitrations seated in Athens or Piraeus.

4.1 Requirements as to content and form

An arbitration agreement must be in written or digital form. Emails, electronic exchanges and references in bills of lading qualify. In keeping with the Model Law, the concept of “writing” is interpreted broadly, and electronic data interchange, online contracts and click-wrap arrangements can satisfy the requirement provided that the parties’ consent is sufficiently clear.

4.2 Validity of arbitration agreements

Valid arbitration agreements require party capacity, arbitrability, and clear consent. Greek courts tend to favour the principle of effectiveness of arbitration agreements and will, where possible, interpret ambiguous clauses in a manner that preserves their validity rather than voiding them.

4.3 Special formalities

None, except internal approvals for state entities. For public law bodies, ministerial or other administrative authorisations may be required as a matter of internal governance, but such formalities do not typically affect the external validity of the arbitration clause vis-à-vis the counterparty.

4.4 Governing law

Parties may expressly choose. Otherwise, lex arbitri or contract law applies. In practice, Greek courts adopt a flexible conflict-of-laws analysis, sometimes applying the law of the main contract or, failing that, the law most closely connected to the arbitration agreement.

5.1 Applicable restrictions

Not arbitrable:

• family law matters;
• employment disputes (except collective bargaining);
• public competition enforcement; and
• tax disputes unless treaty allows.

Arbitrable:

• insolvency-related commercial disputes;
• IP (post-administrative); and
• commercial, corporate and cross-border matters.

The general trend, reinforced by the presumption in Article 3(4) of the ICAAG, is that restrictions on arbitrability are to be construed narrowly. Issues relating to public order and status remain with the state courts, while most patrimonial disputes can be arbitrated.

6.1 Stay of proceedings

Greek courts must stay proceedings and refer the matter to arbitration when a valid arbitration clause exists, unless the clause is found null or unenforceable. This obligation reflects both ICAAG and Greece’s commitments under the NYC. The court’s review at this stage is in principle prima facie, leaving fuller examination of jurisdictional objections to the arbitral tribunal.

6.2 Anti-suit injunctions

Greek courts do not issue anti-suit injunctions due to EU law restrictions (West Tankers). As a result, parties wishing to avoid parallel litigation must rely on arbitration agreements, lis pendens rules and, where possible, tribunal directions or contractual waivers rather than judicial anti-suit relief.

7.1 Restrictions on the parties’ freedom to choose arbitrators

No restrictions except independence, impartiality and capability. Parties are free to appoint arbitrators of any nationality or professional background, which enables the inclusion of sectoral experts (e.g. engineers, surveyors, economists) alongside lawyers and academics.

7.2 Requirement of arbitrator independence and impartiality

Mandatory disclosure obligations exist throughout the proceedings under Article 18 of the ICAAG. Arbitrators must disclose any circumstances likely to give rise to justifiable doubts as to their independence or impartiality, and this duty persists until the final award.

7.3 Mandatory rules applicable to the appointment process

Party autonomy prevails in the appointment of arbitrators’ process. However, where party-agreed mechanisms fail, institutional rules or ICAAG’s fallback provisions apply to ensure that arbitrators are appointed without undue delay.

7.4 Appointment mechanism in the absence of party agreement or applicable institutional rules

Single-member court of first instance acting in a limited supportive and administrative capacity is the most usual mechanism of arbitrator(s) appointment in the absence of party agreement or applicable institutional rules.

7.5 Mandatory rules applicable to the replacement process

Court intervention occurs where parties cannot agree, or where an arbitrator is unable or unwilling to continue in their duties. The goal is to preserve the integrity and continuity of the tribunal.

7.6 Mandatory disclosure obligations

Continuous disclosure of any circumstances creating doubt is required. Non-disclosure may constitute grounds for challenge if the undisclosed facts would have led to legitimate concerns.

7.7 Grounds for challenge

The challenge of arbitrators must be grounded on justifiable doubts as to their independence, impartiality or qualifications. The standard is objective, and mere subjective unease is insufficient; there must be facts from which a reasonable third party could infer a risk of bias.

7.8 Mandatory rules governing the challenge of arbitrators

Articles 18 and 19 of the ICAAG govern challenge procedures. Challenges are generally first addressed within the arbitral framework, with courts intervening only as a last resort.

7.9 Removal

A court may remove an arbitrator only for justified reasons, such as persistent failure to participate or serious misconduct.

7.10 Liability and immunity of arbitrators

Arbitrators have no immunity and may be liable for wilful misconduct or gross negligence. Ordinary negligence is not sufficient, which protects arbitrators from vexatious litigation while preserving a remedy for truly egregious conduct.

8.1 Interim measures

Courts and tribunals both may order interim relief. Tribunal orders may be enforced by courts. Parties may thus choose whether to approach the tribunal, the courts, or both (subject to coordination) to safeguard their rights pending the final award.

8.2 Taking of evidence

Courts assist with witness summons and document production. Where the tribunal lacks coercive powers, it may request the court’s support, especially in relation to third parties.

8.3 Appointment or challenge of arbitrators

Courts act, when necessary, to appoint arbitrators or review challenges, ensuring that arbitration is not delayed or obstructed.

8.4 Other available assistance

No additional assistance mechanisms exist beyond statutory provisions. However, in practice, courts may facilitate service, recognition of foreign procedural acts, or other measures consistent with the principle of support for arbitration.

9.1 Domestic scope of sovereign immunity from jurisdiction

States enjoy immunity for their sovereign acts (acta jure imperii). Commercial acts (acta jure gestionis) are not immune. This functional distinction is well established in Greek case law and international practice.

9.2 Immunity from execution

State assets used for sovereign purposes remain immune — commercial assets are not protected. Enforcement against state property therefore requires careful analysis of the nature and use of the assets in question.

Tribunals may conduct proceedings flexibly. Hearings can be virtual or in-person and decisions may be based on documents unless an oral hearing is required by the parties. Procedural timetables, evidentiary rules and modes of communication are largely left to the parties and the tribunal, subject to basic due process guarantees.

Arbitration is confidential under Greek practice. Exceptions include enforcement proceedings, court orders for justice, or criminal investigations. Institutional rules and party agreements usually reinforce confidentiality obligations for arbitrators, parties, and, where applicable, experts and witnesses.

12.1 Requirements as to content and form

Awards must be written, reasoned (unless waived), and signed by the majority of arbitrators. They must identify the parties, the claims, and the tribunal’s reasoning. Formal defects are rare grounds for annulment but should still be carefully avoided.

12.2 Time limit

The law of Greece does not impose a statutory time limit for rendering an award. Parties may, however, agree on time limits in their arbitration agreement or adopt institutional rules that impose deadlines for rendering the award.

12.3 Remedies

Compensatory damages, moral damages, specific performance, and costs are available. Punitive damages are generally not recognised, unless not contrary to public policy. Greek courts may scrutinise the enforcement of awards granting very high punitive sums if these are perceived as disproportionate to the underlying conduct.

13.1 Interpretation and correction of awards

Under Article 42 of the ICAAG, parties may request correction of clerical, typographical or calculation errors within 30 days from service of the award. Interpretation of specific parts of the award may also be requested within the same timeframe. The tribunal may also correct errors on its own initiative. These mechanisms promote accuracy and prevent unnecessary set-aside actions based on minor defects.

13.2 Challenge of an award

The sole recourse against an award is an action to set aside under Article 43 of the ICAAG before the Court of Appeal. Grounds include lack of capacity, invalid agreement, improper notice, inability to present case, excess of authority, procedural irregularities, or public policy violations. Exceptionally, according to the ICAAG, the court may remit the case back to the tribunal for correction rather than annulling the award outright, where appropriate.

13.3 Recognition and enforcement proceedings

Foreign awards are enforced under the NYC through recognition by the single-member court of first instance. Required documents include the original award document, arbitration agreement and certified translations. Formal requirements are not unduly burdensome, but compliance with translation and certification rules is essential.

13.4 Cost of enforcement

Enforcement costs follow standard court fee schedules and may include translation and certified copy expenses. Compared to other European jurisdictions, costs are moderate, although parties should budget for expert translations and potential appellate stages.

13.5 Enforcement of orders of emergency arbitrators

Greek courts may enforce emergency arbitrator orders unless contrary to public policy. The recognition of such orders underscores the increased sophistication of the Greek arbitration framework and its openness to modern institutional tools.

14.1 Process for enforcing New York Convention awards

Application is filed before the single-member court of first instance. Greece applies the Convention without reciprocity and commerciality limitations. The court examines only formal compliance and any objections under Article V of the Convention.

14.2 Grounds for resisting enforcement of New York Convention awards

Only Article V of the New York Convention grounds apply. Public policy is interpreted narrowly and refers to international — not domestic — public policy. The threshold for invoking public policy is high, focusing on fundamental principles of justice rather than ordinary mandatory rules.

14.3 Enforcing non-Convention awards

Non-Convention awards are enforced under Articles 905 and 906 of the CCP. The conditions broadly mirror Convention standards, though the analysis is conducted under domestic law rather than treaty law.

15.1 Applicable to counsel

Greek lawyers follow the Code of Greek Lawyers, including rules on ethics, confidentiality and conflicts of interest. Foreign counsel may act in Greek-seated arbitrations regardless of bar registration. This openness supports the truly international character of arbitration based in Greece.

15.2 Applicable to arbitrators

Arbitrators must maintain independence, impartiality and confidentiality throughout the proceedings. Many institutions also adopt codes of ethics or refer to international guidelines (such as the IBA Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest) to further structure the arbitrator’s duties.

16.1 Applicable regulatory requirements

There is no statutory prohibition or any specific regulation governing third-party funding in Greece; thus, it is permitted subject to general contract law principles. Funding agreements must respect basic notions of good faith, transparency and fairness.

16.2 Overview of the third-party funding market

The third-party funding market is emerging, mainly supported by international funders especially in commercial arbitration and large cross-border disputes. Greek parties and counsel are becoming progressively more familiar with funding arrangements, especially in high-value maritime, energy and construction disputes.

17.1 Types of specialist arbitration

Greece is particularly active in maritime, energy, construction and technical engineering disputes. These sectors benefit from specialised institutions (PAMA, TEE and the Hellenic Chamber of Shipping) and from an extensive network of experts.

17.2 Key legal principles

Industry standards, lex maritima and sector-specific contractual norms often apply. In practice, arbitrators commonly draw on international trade usages, INCOTERMS, FIDIC conditions in construction, and specialised maritime codes.

17.3 Types of claim and defences typically brought in that area

Common cases involve delays, technical defects, contractual breaches, charter party disputes and pricing disagreements. Defences often revolve around force majeure, variation orders, alleged defects in design specifications, or allocation of risk in long-term contracts.

17.4 Issues and strategic considerations to take note of

Expert evidence is crucial. Procedural efficiency and proper document management are key. Parties should carefully select arbitrators with relevant technical knowledge and anticipate complex quantum assessments, particularly in large construction or energy cases.

The ICAAG has modernised Greek arbitration law, enhancing Greece’s attractiveness as a regional arbitration centre. Virtual hearings, digitisation and increased institutional activity reinforce Greece’s international positioning. The growing participation of Greek practitioners in global arbitration networks, as well as the country’s role in energy and infrastructure projects, suggest that the caseload of international arbitrations seated in Greece is likely to rise. Academic commentary and judicial practice are evolving in a direction that consolidates Greece’s reputation as a modern, arbitration-friendly jurisdiction.