In <span class="news-text_italic-underline">Privinterest and others v Greece, Appeal No 23-10.435</span>, the French Court of Cassation provided important guidance on the circumstances in which assets held by a separate legal entity may be treated as available for enforcement against a foreign state.
The dispute concerned attempts by Hellenic Shipyards SA (“<span class="news-text_medium">HSY</span>”) to enforce an arbitral award against Greece. HSY sought to attach funds held in Paris by a Greek company, HCAP, arguing that HCAP was an instrumentality, or émanation, of the Greek state. On that basis, HSY contended that HCAP’s assets could be used to satisfy Greece’s debt under the award.
HSY’s initial application to seize sovereign assets was rejected by the French Juge de l’exécution. However, the Paris Court of Appeal accepted HSY’s argument. The Court of Appeal recognised that HCAP had been established as part of Greece’s commitments under the European Stability Mechanism (“<span class="news-text_medium">ESM</span>”) programme but held that the Greek state retained sufficient powers of control and direction over HCAP. It also found that HCAP lacked genuine patrimonial autonomy.
On that basis, the Court of Appeal concluded that HCAP was an instrumentality of the Greek state and that its assets could be subject to enforcement measures intended to satisfy debts owed by Greece. HCAP appealed to the Court of Cassation. Before the Court of Cassation, HCAP argued that its creation had been specifically required by European institutions as a condition of Greece receiving financial assistance under the ESM.
The Court of Cassation examined the matter under Article 2284 of the <span class="news-text_italic-underline">French Civil Code</span>, which provides that a debtor is liable for its obligations with all present and future assets. It interpreted that provision in light of EU law, including Article 136(3) of the <span class="news-text_italic-underline">Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 12(1)</span> of the <span class="news-text_italic-underline">Treaty Establishing the European Stability Mechanism</span>, which permits financial assistance where necessary to safeguard the financial stability of the eurozone.
The Court of Cassation quashed the decision of the Paris Court of Appeal. It held that HCAP’s independence from the Greek state was an essential condition of the ESM framework. It also found that HCAP’s role, monetising transferred state assets in order to contribute to the repayment of European financial assistance granted to Greece, was fundamentally incompatible with direct enforcement action by Greece’s creditors against HCAP’s assets.
Accordingly, HCAP could not be treated as an instrumentality of the Greek state for the purposes of enforcement. The Court of Cassation did not remit the matter to the lower court. Instead, it gave its own final decision on the merits, holding that HCAP’s assets could not be subject to enforcement measures in France by creditors of the Greek state. It also ordered the withdrawal of the authorisation previously granted by the Paris Court of Appeal for the attachment of those assets.
<span class="news-text_medium">Case:</span> <span class="news-text_italic-underline">Privinterest and others v Greece</span>, French Court of Cassation, Appeal No <span class="news-text_medium">23-10.435</span>, 17 June 2026.
