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

Key Takeaways

• Greek court rejected enforcement due to excessive appeal security
• Security requirement equaled full judgment plus costs (~$45 million)
• Violation of proportionality and ECHR Article 6 cited
• Highlights public‑policy barrier to foreign maritime judgments
• May affect lenders’ risk assessments on vessels in Greece

Summary

The Piraeus Court of First Instance refused to grant an exequatur for a 2024 Panama Maritime Court judgment, finding the required appeal security of roughly $45 million disproportionate and contrary to Greek public policy. Panama law mandates a security equal to the judgment plus costs to pursue an appeal, effectively forcing the debtor to comply with the first‑instance decision. Greek judges invoked Article 323(5) of the Civil Procedure Code and Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, concluding the guarantee violated proportionality and the right to judicial protection. The ruling underscores the difficulty of enforcing foreign maritime judgments when procedural safeguards are excessively burdensome.

Pulse Analysis

Enforcing foreign judgments has long been a cornerstone of international commerce, yet the Greek court’s refusal to recognize a Panama maritime award highlights a critical friction point. Panama’s Maritime Courts, governed by Laws 8/1982 and 55/2008, grant exclusive jurisdiction over in‑rem actions and require a security deposit—often matching the judgment amount—to initiate an appeal. While intended to deter frivolous litigation, such a blanket requirement can become a de‑facto barrier, especially when the deposit equals the entire claim, as in the $45 million case involving a Hong Kong claimant and a Marshall Islands defendant.

Greek jurisprudence places public policy and proportionality at the forefront of enforcement decisions. Citing Article 323(5) of its Civil Procedure Code, the Piraeus court emphasized that a security demand without caps or discretion contravenes the principle of proportionality and infringes Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees the right to a fair trial. By rejecting the exequatur, the court affirmed that procedural safeguards in the foreign jurisdiction must not undermine fundamental rights or impose undue financial burdens on appellants seeking judicial review.

The broader implications reverberate through maritime finance and vessel‑ownership structures. Lenders and insurers now face heightened scrutiny when relying on foreign judgments to secure collateral, particularly in jurisdictions with onerous appeal prerequisites. Risk‑assessment models may adjust to factor in potential public‑policy defenses, prompting parties to negotiate alternative dispute‑resolution clauses or seek jurisdictions with more balanced appeal mechanisms. Ultimately, the ruling serves as a cautionary tale: cross‑border enforcement strategies must account for both substantive rights and procedural equity to ensure enforceability and protect investment interests.