The central axis of the new regulations remains the basic principle of arbitration upholding the autonomy of the parties, which is already excluded from article 1 of the Act where its purpose is defined and pervades all the provisions.The most important of the new provisions are those concerning the expansion of the arbitrability of disputes, the validity of the arbitration agreement, the proceedings of multilateral arbitrations, as well as the upgrading of the framework of the interim measures issued by the arbitration court and the annulment action against arbitral decisions.
Protection of intellectual property regarding computer programs; the fee paid for the granting of a license to use a computer program, distributed to general or specialized professionals, is the consideration, which the beneficiary claims from the end users; The copyright holder of the intellectual property right on a PC program cannot oppose to the resale of a licensed copy for unlimited use, whether material or immaterial. Evidence protection measures.
Citizens of third countries may complete their investment in one or more pieces of property in the areas of paragraph a, subpar. 2 of paragraph B of article 20 of Act 4251/2014, until December 31, 2023, with a minimum investment value of two hundred and fifty thousand (250,000) euros, subject to an advance payment of ten percent (10%) on the purchase or rental price of hotel accommodation or tourist accommodation until April 30, 2023. If the transaction of the property for which an advance of ten percent (10%) of the purchase price was given is not completed before April 30, 2023, the third country citizen may complete his investment in another or other pieces of property, with a minimum investment value of two hundred fifty thousand (250,000) euros and in any case no later than December 31, 2023.
The appeal concerned a request to the Supreme Court for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) submitted by the applicant in criminal proceedings against him and the alleged absence of any reasoning by the Supreme Court which implicitly rejected this request.
The applicant argued that, despite the relevant jurisprudence of the Strasbourg Court, the Court of Cassation did not even respond to his request, regarding reasonable doubts as to the correct interpretation of the applicable law, for a preliminary ruling from the CJEU. Not only had the Supreme Court not considered the relevant criteria or provided reasons for its refusal to request a preliminary ruling, but it did not even mention the applicant’s request in its decision. The Court based its judgment on its established jurisprudence, according to which Article 6§1 imposes on national courts the obligation to give reasons, in the light of the applicable law, for decisions refusing to refer a preliminary question.
Consumer protection; abusiveness of a clause on price adjustment based on the System Limit Price (OTS); for the validity of power charge adjustment clauses, the contract should clearly and manifestly state the reason and modus of change in the cost of the service provided, so that the consumer can predict, based on clear and understandable criteria, the possible changes in this cost;
Impact of the covid-19 pandemic on lease contracts. Unexpected change in conditions. Rent adjustment claim based on articles 388 and 288 of the Civil Code. On the grounds of article 288 of the Civil Code, when special circumstances occur, the insistence on the fulfillment of the provision is contrary to the straightforwardness and honesty imposed in the transactions, to extend (or limit) the special protection based on the objective criteria prevailing in the transactions . It is not abusive to request a further reduction of the rent beyond the reduction established by law, when the agreement continues to be excessively burdensome.
Motion for recognition of a foreign arbitral award in Greece. Mandatory Form of Arbitration Agreement. Concept of electronic documents. New York Convention of 10.6.1958 on the recognition of foreign arbitral awards. Reasons for dismissing the application. Contrasting the content of the foreign decision with public policy. Bitcoin. It is not a currency. The inflow of funds into the country in the form of bitcoins and crypto-currency in general is not accepted by the Greek legal order, as this practice favors tax evasion. Therefore, the enforceability of a decision recognizing bitcoin as a decentralized peer-to-peer currency unit cannot be recognized in Greece due to opposition to public order.
SA transactions with related parties; the provision of article 23a of Law 2190/1920 prohibits the provision of a guarantee by the anonymous company in favor of the persons referred to in said provision and not vice versa, i.e. the provision of a guarantee by these persons in favor of the anonymous company, while the underlying relationship of the latter with the anonymous company and its validity or not is irrelevant to the contract of guarantee and to the relationship between lender and guarantor.
The draft law of the Minister of Finance entitled: “Corporate governance of Public Limited Companies and other subsidiaries of the Hellenic Holdings and Property Company, management of public holdings in limited companies and arrangements for the Hellenic Holdings and Property Company, evaluation of the solvency and creditworthiness of natural and legal persons vis-à-vis the State and establishment of an Independent Credit Evaluation Authority, establishment and operation of a Central Credit Registry” is set on public consultation. Interested parties are invited to participate in the public electronic consultation, expressing their views and observations on the relevant regulations.
The consultation will last until Saturday, 20.08.2022 at 15.30.
The consultation page: http://www.opengov.gr/minfin/?p=11446
Objection to a payment order; default by the objector; if the objector does not properly take part in the trial, the Court hears the case without him and rejects the objection. Independent additional intervention; a decisive criterion for the characterization of additional intervention as independent is the extension of the validity of the decision, i.e. the subjective limits of res judicata, its enforceability and its transformative action in the legal relations of the third party to its opponent; the procedural right of exercise of independent additional intervention is provided not because of the possible manifestation of adverse actions of the decision on a third party, but because of the binding nature of those, which will be decided in the already pending trial, regarding the intervenor’s relations with his opponent, without the possibility of another procedure. Contribution of Law 128/1975; its transfer to the borrower is legal; the transfer can only be controlled from a transparency point of view, especially when it is imposed without prior sufficient information or in a covert manner. Guarantor’s liability; if the guarantor has waived the objection of possession and has mainly guaranteed as a self-debtor, he has no right to refuse payment of the debt, until the creditor attempts enforcement against the first debtor and this is unsuccessful; this waiver is not abusive, without plea that in this case there is a case of application of the provision of article 332 par. 1 of the Civil Code and it can legally be agreed between the parties.
