Leidos Incorporated v. Helleense Republiek (Griekenland)

At a glance

Parties

Leidos Incorporated (formerly Science Applications International Corporation, SAIC) (USA) v. the Hellenic Republic (Greece)

Case no.

Gerechtshof Den Haag, No. 200.248.376/01 (ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2019:2461)

Court

Court of Appeal of The Hague (Gerechtshof Den Haag), Civil Law Division

Underlying award(s)

ICC Case 16394/GZ/MHM: final award of 2 July 2013 (by majority, with one dissent), seat Athens; interim award on jurisdiction of 14 July 2011

Forum and rules

Recognition and enforcement under the New York Convention 1958 and Article 1075 of the Dutch Code of Civil Procedure

Treaty

Contract arbitration clause (Article 28 of the contract of 19 May 2003)

Tribunal

C.J. Verduyn, M.C.M. van Dijk, R.F. Groos (judges)

Sector

Security systems; 2004 Athens Olympics

Outcome

Leave to enforce the award in the Netherlands granted (10 September 2019). Greece's public-policy defence and its request for a stay were rejected.

Amount

Claimed in the arbitration: EUR 122,073,557. Awarded: EUR 39,818,298 principal plus USD 162,500 arbitration costs, with interest. Court costs against Greece: EUR 726 disbursements and EUR 2,148 lawyer's fees.

The dispute

On 19 May 2003 Greece and Leidos/SAIC signed a contract. Leidos/SAIC was to develop and supply the C4I security system for the 2004 Athens Olympic Games, and the system would then serve the Greek police, fire service, coast guard and ambulance service. Siemens, as subcontractor, was to carry out about 80% of the work. Greece never gave final acceptance of the work, and Leidos started ICC arbitration in Athens in 2009. By majority, the tribunal ordered Greece to pay EUR 39,818,298 plus costs and interest. Greece then sought annulment in Greece, alleging corruption and bribery by Siemens, but the Greek Supreme Court dismissed its final appeal on 20 June 2019. Leidos asked the Hague Court of Appeal to recognise the award and grant leave to enforce it. Greece argued that enforcement would breach Dutch and international public policy because of the corruption and because its right to be heard had been violated. In the alternative, Greece asked the court to stay the decision under Article VI of the New York Convention until the annulment proceedings ended.

Key holdings

1. The court has jurisdiction under Article 1075(2) or Article 1076(6) of the Dutch Code of Civil Procedure. The transitional rule of the 2015 Dutch arbitration law that keeps the old law in force covers only Dutch arbitrations pending at the time, not foreign ones. ¶ 3
2. The Greek Supreme Court's judgment of 20 June 2019 ended the annulment proceedings in Greece, and the award became binding on the parties. Article V(1)(e) of the New York Convention therefore cannot prevent enforcement, and there is no longer any ground for a stay under Article VI. ¶ 6
3. The public-policy defence under Article V(2)(b) fails. The Greek Supreme Court gave reasons for holding that the award does not breach Greek or international public policy and that the tribunal respected equal treatment and the right to be heard. It was not shown that Leidos took part in corruption or that the contract was concluded under the influence of Siemens's corrupt conduct, and the court must proceed on that basis. ¶ 7
4. The requirements of Article IV are met. Article IV(2) calls for a Dutch translation of the award, but an English translation is enough here because Greece did not object and neither Greece nor the court needed a Dutch one. ¶ 8
5. The request succeeds on its primary basis (Article 1075 of the Code of Civil Procedure with Articles III and IV of the Convention). Leave to enforce is granted, and Greece, as the losing party, pays the costs: EUR 726 in disbursements and EUR 2,148 in lawyer's fees. ¶ 9; Decision

Procedural history

1. 19 May 2003Greece and Leidos/SAIC sign the C4I contract, which contains an ICC arbitration clause with its seat in Athens.
2. 16 June 2009Leidos files for ICC arbitration.
3. 14 July 2011Interim award: the tribunal finds it has jurisdiction and rejects Greece's request to suspend the arbitration pending the criminal proceedings.
4. 2 July 2013Final award by majority, with one dissent: Greece is ordered to pay EUR 39,818,298 plus USD 162,500 in costs and interest.
5. 18 June 2014The Athens Court of Appeal annuls the award. The Greek Supreme Court sets that judgment aside on 22 September 2016 and sends the case back.
6. 13 July 2017On remand, the Athens Court of Appeal rejects Greece's remaining annulment ground (right to be heard and equal treatment).
7. 22 October 2018Leidos files its request for recognition and enforcement with the Hague Court of Appeal.
8. 20 June 2019The Greek Supreme Court (case 716/2019) dismisses Greece's appeal, ending the annulment proceedings.
9. 10 September 2019The Hague Court of Appeal grants leave to enforce the award.

Tribunal, counsel and experts

Decided by

• C.J. Verduyn Judge, Gerechtshof Den Haag
• M.C.M. van Dijk Judge, Gerechtshof Den Haag
• R.F. Groos Judge, Gerechtshof Den Haag

For the claimant

K.J. Krzeminski · B.R.D. van der Plas-Hoebeke · T. van Roosmalen

For the respondent

R.P.J.L. Tjittes · P.J. Tanja · H.J.Th. Kolstee

Run a conflict check on these names →

Keywords

• New York Convention
• enforcement
• recognition
• public policy
• Article V(2)(b)
• Article V(1)(e)
• Article VI stay
• annulment
• corruption
• Siemens
• C4I security system
• Athens 2004 Olympics
• SAIC
• translation requirement Article IV(2)
• right to be heard
• ICC
• Netherlands

Summary generated with AI from the published documents — refer to the award for the authoritative text.