Abstract
The purpose of this article is to provide an analysis of the Mamatas and others v. Greece decision by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). The case focuses on the retroactive insertion of a Collective Action Clause in Greek sovereign bonds and its conformity with the right to property as enshrined in Article 1 of the first protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights. This article’s main contention is that the ECtHR in Mamatas puts forward a novel approach to both sovereign debt restructuration and the interpretation of the fair balance requirement contained in Article 1. This approach focuses on the behaviour of holdout bondholders and the market acceptance of specific measures enacted to facilitate a restructuration process in order to justify their proportionality. Such a reasoning can be read as an implicit judicial endorsement of the principles on sovereign debt restructuring advocated by the UNCTAD and the United Nations General Assembly.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
Mamatas and others v Greece (2016). European Court of Human Rights 63066/14.
- 2.
Thivet v France (2000). European Court of Human Rights 57071/00; De Dreux-Brézé c France (2001). European Court of Human Rights 57969/00; Malysh and others v Russia (2010). European Court of Human Rights 30280/03; NML capital LTD v France European Court of Human Rights 23242/12.
- 3.
- 4.
It should be noted that since the ECHR ruling in Mamatas, the Belgian constitutional court also had to rule over the conformity of measures protecting a sovereign debt restructuration process with the right to property as enshrined in article 1 of the first protocol. Interestingly, it seems that the approach of the Belgian court mirrors in part the one followed by the ECtHR. See Arrêt du 31 mqi 2018 (2018). Cour Constitutionelle (Belgium) n°61/2018.
- 5.
Abaclat and Others v Argentine Republic (2011) ICSID ARB/07/5; Ambiente Ufficio S.pA and others v Argentine Republic (2013) ICSID ARB/08/9; Waibel (2007).
- 6.
- 7.
Ainger and Vossos (2018, July 12).
- 8.
- 9.
Alexander Metalinos (2013) The Greek Sovereign Debt Restructuring In Eugenio Bruno (ed) Sovereign debt and debt restructuring: legal, financial and regulatory aspects Globe Law And Business, London; Porzecanski (2013).
- 10.
Mamatas et autres v Greece (n 1) [9–10]; Porzecanski, (n 9).
- 11.
Mamatas et autres v. Greece (n 1) [11]; Porzecanski (n 9), Argyropoulou (n 6).
- 12.
Sturzenegger and Zettelmeyer (2008).
- 13.
Mamatas et autres v. Greece (n 1) [11–12]; Porzecanski (n 6).
- 14.
Ibid.
- 15.
Mamatas et autres v. Greece (n 1), Porzecanski (n 9).
- 16.
Mark Weidemaier and Mitu Gulati (2014) ‘A People’s History of Collective Action Clauses’. Virginia Journal of International Law 1; Anna Gelpern and Mitu Gulati (2006) ‘Public Symbol In Private Contract: A Case Study’. 84 Washington University Law Review 1627; Anne Krueger (2002) ‘A New Approach to Sovereign Debt Restructuring’, IMF, available at https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/exrp/sdrm/eng/sdrm.pdf. Accessed the 17 August 2018.
- 17.
Gelpern and Gulati (n 16).
- 18.
Weidemaier and Gulati (n 16).
- 19.
Ibid.
- 20.
Treaty Establishing the European Stability Mechanism (Brussels) 2012, article 12, para. 3.
- 21.
Mamatas et autres v. Greece (n 1) 18–20.
- 22.
Ibid 22.
- 23.
- 24.
Anheuser-Busch Inc v Portugal (n 20) [65].
- 25.
Mamatas et autres v. Greece (n 1) [87]; Anheuser-Busch Inc v Portugal (n 23) 65.
- 26.
Mamatas et autres v. Greece (n 1) [91].
- 27.
Thivet v. France (n 2).
- 28.
Bäck v. Finland (2004) European Court of Human Rights 37598/97.
- 29.
Yuriy Lobanov v Russia (2010) 15578/03.
- 30.
Andreyeva v Azerbaidjan (2012) European Court of Human Rights 19276/08.
- 31.
Mamatas et autres v. Greece (n 1) [94].
- 32.
Sporrong and Lönnroth v Sweden (European Court of Human Rights), Harris (n 23) 666.
- 33.
James and others v the United Kingdom (European Court of Human Rights).
- 34.
Harris et al. (2014), p. 666.
- 35.
Ibid.
- 36.
Ibid 668–672.
- 37.
Ibid 670.
- 38.
- 39.
Mamatas et autres v. Greece (n 1) [99].
- 40.
Ibid 103.
- 41.
- 42.
Ibid 104–105.
- 43.
Ibid 112, translation by the author.
- 44.
Ibid.
- 45.
Ibid 113.
- 46.
Ibid 114.
- 47.
Ibid 115.
- 48.
Ibid.
- 49.
Alessandro Accorinti and others v European Central Bank (2015) [82].
- 50.
Mamatas et autres v. Greece (n 1) [118].
- 51.
Alessandro Accorinti and others v European Central Bank (n 46).
- 52.
Alessandro Accorinti and others v. European Central Bank (n 46).
- 53.
Mamatas et autres v. Greece (n 1) [118].
- 54.
Ibid 119.
- 55.
Thivet v France (n 2).
- 56.
De Dreux-Brézé c. France (n 2); see also Thivet v. France (n 2).
- 57.
Waibel (n 5).
- 58.
De Dreux-Brézé c. France (n 2); Waibel (n 5) 185.
- 59.
The Urozhay-90 bonds (Harvest-90), distributed by the Soviet government in exchange of grains and redeemable against high in demand commodities but were subsequently recognised by the Russian government as part of its domestic debt Malysh and others v Russia (n 2) [10–14].
- 60.
Ibid 81–85; Waibel (2007), p. 186.
- 61.
Simons (1997). Accessed 20 October 2018.
- 62.
- 63.
Butterfield v. Forrester, [KB] 103 Eng. Rep. 926 (1809).
- 64.
For further background, see Richard Epstein (2000) Cases and Materials on Torts 7th edn. Aspen Law Publishers, Ne-York, 155–64. See also Werkman v. Howard Zink Corp., (1950) 97 Cal. App. 2d 418, 421 (“A plaintiff is required to exercise only that amount of care which would be exercised by a person of ordinary prudence in the same circumstances.”).
- 65.
Mamatas et autres v. Greece (n 1) [121].
- 66.
See CMS Gas Transmission Company v The Republic of Argentina (2005) ICSID ARB/01/8; Enron Corporation and Ponderosa Assets, L.P., v Argentine Republic (2007) ICSID ARB/01/3; Sempra Energy International v. the Argentine Republic (2007) ICSID ARB/02/16; LG&E Energy Corp., LG&E Capital Corp and LG&E International, Inc. v Argentine Republic (2006) ICSID ARB/02/1; Continental Casualty Company v The Argentine Republic (2008) ICSID ARB/03/9.
- 67.
- 68.
- 69.
Mamatas et autres v. Greece (n 1) [115].
- 70.
Ibid 116.
- 71.
Zlínsat, SPOL S RO v Bulgaria (2006) European Court of Human Rights 57785/00; Tomuschat (2009).
- 72.
Harris et al. (2014), p. 674; Sporrong and Lönnroth v Sweden (n 29).
- 73.
Pressos Compania Naviera SA and others v Belgium (1995).
- 74.
Ibid 43.
- 75.
NML Capital, LTD, et al v The Republic of Argentina (2012).
- 76.
- 77.
Société NML Capital c République d’Argentine (2013), The Republic v High Court (Commercial Division), Accra, ex p Attorney-General, NML Capital Ltd 1st Interested Party; Republic of Argentina, 2nd Interested Party (2013) Ghana Supreme Court J5/10/2013; NML Capital Ltd c République d’Argentine (2014).
- 78.
- 79.
NML Capital, LTD., et al. v The Republic of Argentina (n 75).
- 80.
- 81.
- 82.
- 83.
On the abuse of rights doctrine in International Law see, Kiss (2006). Accessed 3 October 2018.
- 84.
United Nations General Assembly Resolution 69/319.
- 85.
It should however be noted that the Court did not make resort to Article 17 of the ECHR in this case.
- 86.
- 87.
von Jhering (1913).
- 88.
- 89.
- 90.
Bohoslavsky and Goldmann (2016), Goldmann (n 81).
- 91.
- 92.
- 93.
- 94.
Zettelmeyer et al. (2013). Accessed 16 August 2018.
- 95.
This approach, recently dubbed the incremental approach to sovereign debt restructuring, seeks to find a third way to the collective actions problems present in the current framework for sovereign debt restructuring. In that it seeks to complete the contractual approach, embodied mainly by the adoption of CACs and the public-law approach defended in the SDRM proposals. Bohoslavsky and Goldmann (n 90).
- 96.
Gathii (Gathii 2006).
References
Adar DY (2013) Comparative negligence and mitigation of damages: two sister doctrines in search of reunion. Quinnipiac Law Rev 31. Available at https://works.bepress.com/yehuda/15/
Ainger J (2018, October 15) Underpriced Italy default risk means flatter curve for NatWest. Bloomberg
Ainger J, Vossos, T (2018, July 12) The latest buzz in the bond market? Greece is back. Bloomberg
Alessandro Accorinti and others v European Central Bank (2015) European Court of Justice T-79/13
Anheuser-Busch Inc v Portugal (2007) European Court of Human Rights 73049/01
Argyropoulou V (2018) Convergence and divergence between international investment law and human rights law, in the context of the Greek Sovereign debt restructuring. Bus Entrepreneurship Law p 165
Arrêt du 31 mqi 2018 (2018) Cour Constitutionelle (Belgium) n°61/2018
Beyeler v Italy (2000) European Court of Human Rights 33202/96
Blackman JI, Mukhi R (2010) Evolution of modern Sovereign debt litigation: vultures, Alter Egos, and Other Legal Fauna. Law Contemp Probl 73:47
Bohoslavsky JP, Goldmann M (2016) An incremental approach to Sovereign debt restructuring: Sovereign debt sustainability as a principle of public international law. Yale J Int 41:13
Boudreau M (2012) Restructuring sovereign debt under local law: Are retrofit collective action clauses expropriatory? Social science research network SSRN scholarly paper ID 1979238, available at http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=1979238. Accessed 19 August 2018
Buchheit LC, Gulati GM (2010) How to restructure Greek debt Social Science Research Network SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 1603304, available at http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=1603304. Accessed 19 August 2018
Buchheit LC, Pam JS (2004) Pari Passu clause in Sovereign debt instruments. Emory Law J 53:869
Campos R, Ellsworth B (2018, August 15) Payment seen unlikely on $1.1 billion in maturing Venezuela bonds. Reuters
Carbonara and Ventura v Italy (European Court of Human Rights)
Case concerning certain German interests in Polish Upper Silesia (merits) (1926) Series A-No 7 Collect Judgement (Permanent Court of International Justice)
Case of the former King of Greece and others v Greece (2000) European Court of Human Rights 25701/94
Colaiacomo M (2013) Eurozone collective action clauses and specialised agencies of the United Nations as international organisations: Do CACs constitute an expropriation under international law? International law research 2, available at http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ilr/article/view/31660. Accessed 19 August 2018
Deakin SF, Johnston A, Markesinis B (2012) Markesinis and Deakin’s Tort Law. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Demogue R (1911) Les notions fondamentales du droit privé : essai critique, pour servir d’introduction à l’étude des obligations. A Rousseau, Paris, available at http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k5457266z
Demogue R (1923) Traité Des Obligations En Général. Tome 4, available at http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k6473203z
di Robilant A (2014) ‘Abuse of rights: the continental drug and the common law. Social Science Research Network, SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 2457018, available at https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2457018
Fisch J, Gentile C (2004) Vultures or vanguards? The role of litigation in Sovereign debt restructuring. Emory Law J 53:1043
Gathii JT (2006) The sanctity of Sovereign loan contracts and its origins in enforcement litigation. George Washington Int Law Rev 38:251
Goldmann M (2016) Putting your faith in good faith: a principled strategy for smoother Sovereign debt workouts. Yale J Int Law 41:117
Gulati M, Scott RE (2013) The three and a half minute transaction: Boilerplate Andthe limits of contract design. University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Harris DJ, O’Boyle M, Warbrick C (2014) Harris, O’Boyle & Warbrick: Law of the European convention on human rights, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Jahn and Others v Germany (2005) European Court of Human Rights 46720/99, 72203/01 and 72552/01
James and others v the United Kingdom (European Court of Human Rights)
Josserand L (1927) De L’esprit Des Droits et de Leur Relativité: Théorie Dite de L’abus Des Droits. Dalloz, Paris
Rivers J (2006) Proportionality and variable intensity of review. Camb. Law J. 65: 174
Kelsen H (1950) The law of the United Nations: a critical analysis of its fundamental problems Stevens. London
Kennedy D (2011) A transnational genealogy of proportionality in private law. In: Brownsword R, Micklitz H-W, Niglia L, Weatherill S (eds) The foundations of European private law. Hart Publishing, Oxford
Kennedy D, Belleau M-C (2000) François Gény Aux États-Unis. In: Thomasset C, Vanderlinden J, Jestaz P (eds) François Gény: mythes et réalités 1899–1999, Centenaire de Méthode d’interprétation et sources en droit privé positif—essai critique. Les éditions Yvon Blais, Paris
Kiss A (2006) Abuse of rights. In: Max Planck encyclopedia of public international law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, available at http://opil.ouplaw.com/view/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e1371
Klatt M, Meister M (2012) The constitutional structure of proportionality, Oxford University Press, Oxford 10, available at http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199662463.001.0001/acprof-9780199662463. Accessed 8 August 2018
Kolb R (1998) Bonne Foi En Droit International Public, La. Revue Belge de Droit International/ Belgian Rev Int Law 31:661
Kolb R (2005) Principles as sources of international law (with special reference to good faith). Netherlands Int Law Rev 53:1
Koskenniemi M (2002) The gentle civilizer of nations: the rise and fall of international law, 1870–1960. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Kotzur M (2009) Good faith (Bona Fide). In: Max Planck encyclopedia of public international law available at http://opil.ouplaw.com/view/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e1412?rskey=fhLubm&result=1&prd=EPIL
Lauterpacht H (1933) The function of law in the international community. The Clarendon Press, London
Lauterpacht H (1958) The development of international law by the international court. Stevens, London
Lightwater Corp Ltd et al v Republic of Argentina (2003) US Dist Lexis 6156 (US District Court SDNY)
Lopez-Escarcena S (2012) Interferences with property under European human rights law. Fla J Int Law 24: 513
Mamatas et autres v Greece (2016) European Court of Human Rights 63066/14; 64297/14 and 66106/14
Megliani M (2015) Sovereign debt: genesis, restructuring, litigation. Springer, Cham
Moyse P-E (2011) L’Abus de Droit: L’Antenorme—Partie 1. McGill Law J 57:859
Nadakavukaren Schefer K (2013) International investment law: text cases and materials. Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, Cheltenham
NML Capital Limited v Republic of Argentina (2011) UK Supreme Court UKSC 2010/0040, 2011 UKSC 31
NML Capital Ltd c République d’Argentine (2014) Cour de Cassation (Belgium) C.13.0537.F
NML Capital, LTD, et al v The Republic of Argentina (2012) United State Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit 12–105(L)
NML capital v Republic of Argentina (2010) United States Court of Appeal for the Second Circuit 09–2707–cv (L), 09–2708–cv (CON), 09–2867–cv (CON), 09–2710–cv (CON), 09–2711–cv (CON), 09–2712–cv (CON), 09–2713–cv (CON), 09–2714–cv (CON), 09–2715–cv (CON), 09–2716–cv (CON), 09–2717–cv (CON), 09–2810–cv (CON), 621 Fed Report 3rd Ser 230
Politis N (1925) ‘Le Problème Des Limitations de La Souveraineté et La Théorie de L’abus de Droit Dans Les Rapports Internationaux’. Receuil des Cours de l’académie de droit international de la Haye 6:1
Porzecanski A (2005) From Rogue creditors to Rogue debtors: implications of Argentina’S default. Chicago J Int Law 6:311
Porzecanski A (2013) Behind the 2012 Greek default and restructuring. In: Bruno Eugenio (ed) Sovereign debt and debt restructuring: legal financial and regulatory aspects. Globe Law And Business, London
Pressos Compania Naviera SA and others v Belgium (1995) European Court of Human Rights 17849/91
Samples TR (2014) Rogue trends in Sovereign debt: Argentina, Vulture Funds, and Pari Passu under New York Law. Social Science Research Network SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 2403342, available at http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2403342
Simons KW (1997) Contributory negligence: conceptual and normative issues. In Owen DG (ed) The philosophical foundations of Tort law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, available at http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198265795.001.0001/acprof-9780198265795-chapter-21
Société NML Capital c République d’Argentine (2013) Cour de Cassation (1ère ch civ) (France) 11–40.450
Špaček, s.r.o v the Czech Republic (European Court of Human Rights)
Sporrong and Lönnroth v Sweden (European Court of Human Rights)
Sturzenegger F, Zettelmeyer J (2008) Haircuts: estimating investor losses in Sovereign debt restructurings, 1998–2005. J Int Money Finance 27:780
The Republic v High Court (Commercial Division), Accra, ex p Attorney-General, NML Capital Ltd 1st Interested Party; Republic of Argentina, 2nd Interested Party (2013) Ghana Supreme Court J5/10/2013
Thivet v France (2000) European Court of Human Rights 57071/00
Tomuschat C (2009) The European court of human rights and investment protection. In: Binder C, Kriebaum U, Reinisch A, Wittich S (eds) International investment law for the 21st century: Essays in honour of Christoph Schreuer. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 644–645
UNCTAD (2014) Guidelines on responsible Sovereign lending and borrowing (Draft Version) available at http://www.unctad.info/upload/DebtPortal/RSLBGuidelines/RSLBGuidelines25Aug2014.pdf
United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) Sovereign debt workouts: going forward roadmap and guide. Available at http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/gdsddf2015misc1_en.pdf
von Jhering R (1913) Law as a means to an end. Boston Book Co, Boston
Waibel (2007) Two worlds of necessity in ICSID arbitration: CMS and LG&E. Social Science Research Network SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 1566488. Available at http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=1566488. Accessed 21 March 2018
Waibel M (2013a) Sovereign defaults before international courts and tribunals. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Waibel M (2013b) Out of thin air? In: Espósito C, Li Y, Bohoslavsky JP (eds) Sovereign financing and international law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, available at http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199674374.001.0001/acprof-9780199674374-chapter-5
Wautelet PR (2013) The Greek debt restructuring and property rights. A Greek tragedy for investors? Social Science Research Network SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 2373891, available http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2373891. Accessed 19 August 2018
Westlake J (1904) International law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Wong N (2014) NML Capital, Ltd. v. Republic of Argentina and the changing roles of the Pari Passu and collective action clauses in Sovereign Debt agreements. Columbia J Trans Law 53:396
United Nations General Assembly Resolution 69/319: basic principles on sovereign debt restructuring processes. Available at http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/69/319
Zamour R (2013) NML Argentina and the ratable payment interpretation of the Pari Passu Clause. Yale J Int Law Online 38. Available at http://www.yjil.org/docs/pub/o-38-zamour-nml-v-argentina.pdf
Zettelmeyer J, Trebesch C, Gulati GM (2013) The Greek debt restructuring: an autopsy. Social Science Research Network, SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 2144932, http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2144932
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Belle, A. (2020). Mamatas and Others v. Greece: How the European Court of Human Rights Could Change Sovereign Debt Restructuration. In: Haskell, J., Rasulov, A. (eds) New Voices and New Perspectives in International Economic Law. European Yearbook of International Economic Law(). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-32512-1_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-32512-1_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-32511-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-32512-1
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)