Notice: We are currently performing maintenance to improve the italaw platform. The site remains fully accessible. Thank you for your patience.

Hellenic Shipyards S.A., Privinvest Holding SAL, Privinvest Shipbuilding SAL Holding and Hörn-Beteiligungs GmbH v. Greece, ICC Case No. 18675/GZ/MHM/AGF/ZF

New
Short Name:

Hellenic Shipyards v. Greece

Case Type:
International Commercial Arbitration (State–Private)
Applicable Procedural Rules:
ICC Arbitration Rules (2012)
Seat of Arbitration:
Applicable Treaty:
Applicable Legal Instruments:
Economic Sector:
Wholesale and Retail Trade; Repair of Motor Vehicles and Motorcycles

Available documents

29 Jun 2016
European Commission Decision on intervention before the International Court of Arbitration as a Non-Disputing Party
Document Details:
PARTICIPANTS
European Commission Decision on intervention before the International Court of Arbitration as a Non-Disputing Party
Participants listed are for this document only and may not include all participants involved in the entire case. Always consult the original documents.
Claimant appointee
Respondent appointee
Tribunal/Panel chair
Arbitrator(s)
Sole Arbitrator
ICSID Annulment Committee president
ICSID Annulment Committee members
WTO Appellate Body members
WTO Appellate Body chair
Judges
Claimant's counsel
Respondent's counsel
Other counsel
Claimant's expert
Respondent's expert
Claimant's witness
Respondent's witness
Other witnesses
Tribunal secretary
Tribunal assistant
Country
Print reporter
Entities
Hellenic Shipyards, European Commission, Greece
Document Summary
European Commission Decision on intervention before the International Court of Arbitration as a Non-Disputing Party
This summary note is machine-generated. Always consult the original materials.

Background and Rationale for Intervention

This document is a formal decision by the European Commission to seek leave to intervene as a non-disputing party in an International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) arbitration (Case No. 18675/GZ/MHM/AGF/ZF) between Hellenic Shipyards S.A. and its parent companies (as Claimants) and the Hellenic Republic ("Greece"). The decision is based on the Commission's mandate to ensure the consistent application of European Union law.

The Commission's interest stems from its 2008 "Recovery Decision," which determined that Greece had provided incompatible State aid to Hellenic Shipyards and mandated its recovery. This decision was subsequently upheld by the EU's General Court and Court of Justice, rendering it final. The Commission notes that the arbitration proceedings initiated by the Claimants concern, inter alia, allegations that Greece improperly handled a subsequent "Military Decision" related to the implementation of the recovery. Furthermore, the Claimants have sought interim relief in the arbitration against the national recovery orders issued by Greece in compliance with the Commission's decision.

Decision to Intervene

In order to safeguard the Union's interest in the uniform and effective application of State aid rules, which are directly implicated by the arbitral proceedings, the Commission resolves to request leave to intervene. The intervention is sought in both the main arbitration and the associated interim relief proceedings. The decision directs the Commission's Legal Service to take the necessary steps to file the request, which may include submitting written observations and participating in hearings if invited by the arbitral tribunal.
29 Sep 2017
Award
Document Details:
Participants listed are for this document only and may not include all participants involved in the entire case. Always consult the original documents.
Claimant appointee
Respondent appointee
Tribunal/Panel chair
Arbitrator(s)
Sole Arbitrator
ICSID Annulment Committee president
ICSID Annulment Committee members
WTO Appellate Body members
WTO Appellate Body chair
Judges
Claimant's counsel
Respondent's counsel
Other counsel
Claimant's expert
Respondent's expert
Claimant's witness
Respondent's witness
Other witnesses
Tribunal secretary
Tribunal assistant
Country
Print reporter
Entities
This summary note is machine-generated. Always consult the original materials.


15 Sep 2022
Judgment of the Paris Court of Appeal (French)
Document Details:
PARTICIPANTS
Judgment of the Paris Court of Appeal (French)
Participants listed are for this document only and may not include all participants involved in the entire case. Always consult the original documents.
Claimant appointee
Respondent appointee
Tribunal/Panel chair
Arbitrator(s)
Sole Arbitrator
ICSID Annulment Committee president
ICSID Annulment Committee members
WTO Appellate Body members
WTO Appellate Body chair
Judges
Bénédicte Pruvost, Catherine Lefort, Raphaël Trarieux
Claimant's counsel
Harold HERMAN, Jean-Philippe PONS-HENRY, Jean-sébastien BAZILLE
Respondent's counsel
Fanny CROSNIER, Camille VIAUD LE POLLES
Other counsel
Claimant's expert
Respondent's expert
Claimant's witness
Respondent's witness
Other witnesses
Tribunal secretary
Tribunal assistant
Country
Country in which this occurs:
France
Print reporter
Entities
Hellenic Shipyards, Hellenic Corporation of Assets & Participations, TGS FRANCE AVOCATS, Greece
Document Summary
Judgment of the Paris Court of Appeal (French)
This summary note is machine-generated. Always consult the original materials.

Procedural Background

This judgment of the Paris Court of Appeal addresses an application by the Hellenic Corporation of Assets and Participations SA (HCAP) for the retraction (rétractation) of the Court's prior ex parte judgment of 27 June 2019. The 2019 judgment had authorized Hellenic Shipyards SA (HSY) to execute a conservatory attachment (saisie-attribution) against funds held by HCAP at HSBC bank. This enforcement measure sought to satisfy an ICC arbitral award rendered against the Hellenic Republic (Greece) in favor of HSY. The central legal question before the Court was whether HCAP could be considered an emanation of the Greek State, thereby permitting the enforcement of a state liability against its assets.

The Court's Analysis on State Emanation

The Court undertook a detailed analysis of whether HCAP met the two-pronged test for state emanation under French law: the organic criterion (control by the state) and the patrimonial criterion (lack of a distinct patrimony). HCAP argued for its independence, a condition purportedly required for Greece to receive financial assistance from the European Stability Mechanism (ESM). HSY contended this independence was illusory.

The Court found that the organic criterion was satisfied. It held that despite HCAP's formal status as a private commercial company and the involvement of European institutions in its governance, the Greek State exercises permanent control and orientation. The Court highlighted the State's position as the sole shareholder, its authority as the supreme body of the company through the general assembly, and its determinative role in the supervisory board, which appoints the board of administration. This structure, the Court concluded, confers upon the State a preeminent and controlling role.

The Court also found that the patrimonial criterion was met. It reasoned that HCAP's capital was entirely provided by the State, its statutory mission is to manage, transfer, and hold assets belonging exclusively to the State, and its profits revert entirely to the State's benefit—either directly as dividends to reduce public debt or indirectly through reinvestment. The Court noted that HCAP performs no commercial activity other than its mission of reducing Greek debt and investing for the State. Consequently, the Court determined that HCAP does not possess a patrimony distinct from that of the Greek State.

Decision

The Paris Court of Appeal declared HCAP's application for retraction admissible but dismissed it on the merits. The Court affirmed the 2019 finding that HCAP is an emanation of the Greek State, confirming that its assets are subject to enforcement measures for the State's debts. The Court, however, declared inadmissible HSY's separate request to modify the original order to authorize a broader attachment against all of HCAP's accounts in France, holding that such a request exceeded the scope of a retraction proceeding. HCAP was ordered to pay HSY €3,000 pursuant to Article 700 of the Code of Civil Procedure and to bear the costs of the proceedings.
5 May 2026
Supplementary opinion of the Advocate General (French)
Supplementary Report from the the advisor (French)
Document Details:
PARTICIPANTS
Supplementary opinion of the Advocate General (French)
Supplementary Report from the the advisor (French)
Participants listed are for this document only and may not include all participants involved in the entire case. Always consult the original documents.
Claimant appointee
Respondent appointee
Tribunal/Panel chair
Arbitrator(s)
Sole Arbitrator
ICSID Annulment Committee president
ICSID Annulment Committee members
WTO Appellate Body members
WTO Appellate Body chair
Judges
Claimant's counsel
Respondent's counsel
Other counsel
Claimant's expert
Respondent's expert
Claimant's witness
Respondent's witness
Other witnesses
Tribunal secretary
Tribunal assistant
Country
Country in which this occurs:
France
Print reporter
Entities
Hellenic Shipyards, Hellenic Corporation of Assets & Participations, Greece
Document Summary
Supplementary opinion of the Advocate General (French)
Supplementary Report from the the advisor (French)
This summary note is machine-generated. Always consult the original materials.

Procedural Posture

This document is a complementary opinion issued by the Advocate General (avocat général) to the French Cour de Cassation in proceedings concerning an appeal lodged by the Hellenic Corporation of Assets and Participations (HCAP). The appeal challenges a 15 September 2022 decision of the Paris Court of Appeal, which had upheld an earlier order authorising the attachment of HCAP's assets in France. The attachment was sought by Hellenic Shipyards SA (HSY) for the enforcement of a 2017 arbitral award rendered against the Hellenic Republic (Greece).

Core Legal Issue

The central legal question before the Cour de Cassation is whether HCAP constitutes an "emanation of the State" (émanation d'Etat) of Greece under French law. A finding of emanation would permit the piercing of HCAP's corporate veil, allowing HSY to treat HCAP's assets as belonging to Greece for the purposes of enforcing the arbitral award. The appeal contends that the Court of Appeal legally erred in its application of the criteria for determining state emanation, particularly in light of the specific circumstances of HCAP's creation and governance.

Advocate General's Analysis and Recommendation

The Advocate General's analysis focuses on the two cumulative conditions established by French jurisprudence for a finding of state emanation: (i) a lack of functional independence, and (ii) a confusion of patrimonies between the entity and the State. The opinion argues that the Court of Appeal misapplied this test.

The Advocate General emphasizes that HCAP was established pursuant to requirements imposed by European institutions under the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) as a condition for providing financial assistance to Greece. The purpose was to create an independent fund to manage Greek assets under the supervision of these European institutions. This context, the opinion suggests, is fundamentally inconsistent with the notion that HCAP is merely an alter ego controlled by the Greek state. The Advocate General finds that the lower court gave insufficient weight to the role of the European Commission and the ESM in HCAP's governance, which limits the Greek state's actual control. Furthermore, the opinion concludes that the evidence presented was insufficient to establish a genuine confusion of assets between HCAP and Greece.

Consequently, the Advocate General recommends that the Cour de Cassation quash (casser) the decision of the Paris Court of Appeal, finding merit in several branches of HCAP's appeal. The opinion concludes that the legal and factual matrix surrounding HCAP's establishment precludes its classification as a state emanation for enforcement purposes.
17 Jun 2026
Judgment of the French Cour de cassation (French)
Document Details:
PARTICIPANTS
Judgment of the French Cour de cassation (French)
Participants listed are for this document only and may not include all participants involved in the entire case. Always consult the original documents.
Claimant appointee
Respondent appointee
Tribunal/Panel chair
Arbitrator(s)
Sole Arbitrator
ICSID Annulment Committee president
ICSID Annulment Committee members
WTO Appellate Body members
WTO Appellate Body chair
Judges
Corneloup, Marc Ancel, Elisabeth Peyregne-Wable, Sylvie Tréard, Stéphanie Robin-Raschel
Claimant's counsel
Respondent's counsel
Other counsel
Claimant's expert
Respondent's expert
Claimant's witness
Respondent's witness
Other witnesses
Tribunal secretary
Tribunal assistant
Country
Country in which this occurs:
France
Print reporter
Entities
Hellenic Shipyards, Melka-Prigent-Drusch, Hellenic Corporation of Assets & Participations, Greece
Document Summary
Judgment of the French Cour de cassation (French)
This summary note is machine-generated. Always consult the original materials.

Procedural History and Disposition

This judgment was rendered by the French Cour de cassation (the Supreme Court for civil and criminal matters) in a dispute concerning the enforcement of an arbitral award against the Hellenic Republic (Greece). The Court reviewed a decision of the Paris Court of Appeal dated 15 September 2022, which had addressed the characterization of the Hellenic Corporation of Assets and Participations (HCAP) as an emanation of the Greek state.

The Cour de cassation quashed the appellate court's decision. Exercising its power to rule on the merits without remand, the Court definitively rejected the creditor's attempt to enforce its award against HCAP's assets, ordering the retraction of the prior attachment authorization and condemning the creditor, Hellenic Shipyards SA (HSY), to pay costs.

Legal Issue and Parties' Arguments

The central legal question was whether HCAP, a distinct legal entity, could be classified as an "emanation" or alter ego of the Greek state under French enforcement law, thereby permitting the attachment of its assets to satisfy a debt owed by the state. The creditor, HSY, sought to pierce the corporate veil by arguing that HCAP lacked sufficient functional autonomy and that its assets were indistinct from those of the state.

HCAP contended that its status and purpose, as defined under European Union law, precluded such a classification. It argued that it was established at the specific behest of European institutions as a condition for financial assistance to Greece under the European Stability Mechanism (ESM), with the express mandate to operate independently to manage and monetize state assets to service sovereign debt owed to European partners.

The Court's Reasoning and Holding

The Cour de cassation held that the traditional French domestic law test for determining whether an entity is an emanation of a state must be interpreted in light of overriding objectives of European Union law. The Court found that HCAP's independence from the Greek government was a fundamental condition for the grant of financial assistance under the ESM treaty framework. The very purpose of HCAP's creation—to create an independent fund to manage assets for privatization and debt reduction in line with EU-mandated objectives—was fundamentally incompatible with allowing the entity's assets to be seized by other state creditors.

The Court reasoned that qualifying HCAP as an emanation of the state would "compromise the realization of the objectives pursued by measures instituted by the European Union." Consequently, even if the domestic law criteria for an alter ego relationship were met, the application of the emanation doctrine must be disapplied in this context. The Court concluded that HCAP's assets are not available for execution by creditors of the Greek state.