No Exequatur Granted for a Panamanian Judgment in Greece Due to Public Policy Considerations [Piraeus Court of First Instance Case No. 2040/2026, Unreported]

INTRODUCTION

Following a big hiatus, the general public coverage protection has re-emerged prominently in discussions surrounding the enforcement of international judgments, notably within the context of a judgment issued by the Panama Maritime Courtroom in 2024. The first difficulty addressed by the Greek courtroom was whether or not a international judgment may very well be acknowledged and enforced when the international courtroom denied appellate proceedings because of the failure to publish a safety deposit that was each substantial and vital for the attraction course of.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND LEGAL FRAMEWORK

The case concerned a declare for damages between an organization based mostly in Hong Kong and one other firm registered within the Marshall Islands. This dispute was adjudicated below Panama’s maritime regulation, established by Regulation 8 of 1982 and up to date by Regulation 55 of 2008, which governs maritime-related disputes by means of a specialised and environment friendly authorized framework. The Panamanian maritime courts possess unique jurisdiction over in rem actions, enabling immediate vessel arrests and maritime liens inside each Panamanian territorial waters and the Panama Canal for claims associated to damages, cargo points, and collisions.

The Panamanian courtroom dominated in favor of the claimant, mandating the defendant to both return the vessel or pay roughly 45 million USD, i.e., the valuation of the vessel together with related authorized prices, as ordered by the courtroom.

Subsequently, the judgment creditor sought recognition and enforcement of the Panamanian judgment in Greece, because the vessel was docked inside Greek territorial waters.

The opposing get together contended that the ruling from the Panamanian Naval Courtroom of First Occasion contravened Greek public coverage and the European Conference on Human Rights (ECHR), primarily as a result of the appellate course of was successfully obstructed. Based on Article 490 of Panama’s Maritime Courts and Disputes Regulation, the appellant was required to deposit a safety of practically 45 million USD (equal to the judgment quantity and related authorized charges) inside ten days to have its attraction thought-about.

The unique textual content from Article 490 reads:

“Artículo 490. Para cursar la apelación se requerirá la consignación, ante la secretaría del Tribunal Marítimo de primera instancia, de una caución que garantice el pago del monto de la condena más las costas. Para determinar el monto de la caución se considerará la caución consignada para levantar el secuestro o el valor del bien secuestrado. Dicha caución será consignada dentro de los diez días siguientes a la notificación de la providencia que admita el recurso. Si el apelante no consigna la caución de que trata este artículo, el juez declarará desierto el recurso.”

In mild of the above, the extreme requirement for a safety deposit resulted within the judgment debtor’s attraction being dismissed, thereby forfeiting its proper to be heard.

FINDINGS OF THE GREEK COURT.

The Greek courtroom acknowledged that whereas imposing a monetary assure as a prerequisite for attraction can have reputable justifications, equivalent to discouraging vexatious litigation and selling judicial efficacy, the circumstances on this case revealed that the requirement was manifestly disproportionate and unduly burdensome. The courtroom articulated the next considerations:

– The required assure matched the whole quantity of the preliminary judgment plus prices.

– There was no cap, no exceptions, and no discretion for discount based mostly on the specifics of the case.

– It successfully compelled the appellant to adjust to the first-instance judgment in full simply to entry the attraction course of.

The courtroom referenced Article 323(5) of the Greek Code of Civil Process, which encompasses the general public coverage clause, confirming that the safety requirement violated the precept of proportionality. Moreover, limiting entry to the courtroom and undermining judicial safety immediately contravened Article 6(1) of the ECHR and Article 20, paragraph 1 of the Greek Structure.

Consequently, the duty to deposit an quantity of USD 44,397,715.97, which constitutes the awarded sum of the preliminary judgment (USD 41,248,107.88) plus authorized prices (USD 3,149,608.09), was considered as an untenable monetary burden that contradicts the fitting to judicial safety.

Extra particularly, the imposition of a safety deposit that equaled the judgment quantity plus authorized charges, with no statutory limits, exceptions, or discretionary discount potentialities, violated public coverage. This requirement considerably infringed upon the appellant’s proper to entry judicial treatments towards an enforceable ruling.

Lastly, the courtroom famous that whereas Greek regulation permits for provisional enforceability of first-instance judgments below sure situations, together with the potential for attraction suspension with no assure if there’s a chance of success, such provisions had been absent in Panamanian regulation.