2005 REPORT ON INVESTMENT DISPUTES AND

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 ATHENS 001770

SIPDIS

STATE FOR EB/IFD/OIA JPROSELI AND L/CID JNICOL

STATE FOR USTR FHUEGEL AND OPIC O'SULLIVAN

USDOC FOR ITA ATAYLOR

TREASURY FOR DO CHRISTOPULOS

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: EINV EFIN PGOV KIDE CASC GR
SUBJECT: 2005 REPORT ON INVESTMENT DISPUTES AND
EXPROPRIATION CLAIMS: GREECE

REF: A) STATE 70014; B) 04 ATHENS 2132


1. Per ref A, the following are the investment
dispute and expropriation claims that have come to
attention of ConGen Thessaloniki and FCS and Consular
and Economic sections Athens since post's last report in
June 2004 (ref B).


2. Case 1:

a) Claimant A

b) June 1999

c) Claimant A is a wholly owned subsidiary of a U.S.
manufacturing design firm that produces patented
plastics manufacturing system and equipment. In the
1990s, the U.S. parent company applied to the GOG for
industrial investment incentives in order to
establish a plastics manufacturing plant in northern
Greece, which would incorporate the company's
manufacturing systems and equipment. Claimant A
maintains that the project is now 85 percent complete
but that the GOG has not met its incentives payment
commitments, and that this is preventing final
completion of the project and its opening for
business. The GOG maintains that Claimant A has not
fully met its responsibilities under the law
regulating investment incentives, and that therefore
claimant will not receive further incentive payments.
The dispute has continued for four years, with every
attempt at advocacy to resolve the matter having
failed -- including advocacy at the highest levels.
Last year, Claimant A attempted to secure the support
of a Greek investor, also in the plastics sector, to
complete the project. All work on the project has
come to a halt and some aspects of the case are being
litigated in the Greek courts. Unless granted
judicial relief, and this is far from certain, the
U.S. company will likely lose its entire investment
in the project. Post has been unable to
contact Claimant A and has received no
information in the last three years;
therefore, we will discontinue this case in
future reports.


3. Case 2:

a) Claimant B

b) May 23, 2000

c) On May 23, 2000, an attorney for Claimant B
informed Post that the municipality of Amaroussio (in
Northern Athens) stated that it planned to annex
5,160 square meters of Claimant B's property into the
Municipality's public property. The Municipality
also demanded that Claimant B pay taxes on 900 square
meters of property that had not previously been
taxed. Claimant B has owned the property for over 30
years and claims that the municipal action violates a
1954 Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation
between Greece and the United States. He believes
the action taken against his property is
discriminatory. On June 1, 2001, Claimant B won a
partial victory when an appellate court ordered the
Municipality to return 1,500 square meters of the
property. On June 3, 2002, Claimant's attorney
informed post that the Municipality has decided to
require a monetary contribution from Claimant B in
lieu of the property. On May 6, 2003, claimant's
attorney informed post that the municipality is
requesting the amount of 3,750 Euros. Claimant B
sought legal relief from the monetary contribution on
the grounds that the property is owned by a not-for-
profit religious association. Local court
ruled that the amount of the monetary
contribution is not correct and requested the
Municipality to recalculate the amount.
Claimant's new attorney has appealed court's
ruling insisting that Claimant should not have
to pay any contributions. Hearing date has
not been set yet.



4. Case 3:

a) Claimant C

b) February 11, 1999

c) On February 12, 1999, Claimant C notified Embassy
Consular Section that the caretaker of his offices in
Mycenae (Peloponnese) had been evicted and that the
mayor of Mycenae had taken possession of the
building. The building had been constructed with
funds raised by a U.S. - based foundation. Claimant
C charged that this action violated an agreement made
when the building was constructed wherein Claimant C
agreed to share two of the offices with local
residents. On November 25, 1999, a local court
ordered the Mayor to vacate Claimant's property. As
of May 2002 Claimant C's attorney stated that not all
of the office occupants had been evicted as the court
ordered. Claimant C filed a new lawsuit against the
community of Mycenae seeking the complete eviction of
all occupants. The hearing in the case was scheduled
for November 20, 2002, but was postponed twice. According
to Claimant C's attorney, a new hearing has been set
for January 18, 2006.


5. Case 4:

a) Claimant D

b) October 19, 2001

c) Claimant D inherited property on the island of
Kastellorizo from his grandfather, who bought the
land over 50 years ago. In October 2000, the
Claimant reported to the Consular Section that the
Mayor of Kastellorizo was attempting to seize the
property. When Post contacted the Greek Ministry of
Aegean we were informed that the city of Kastellorizo
has a claim to the property under Greek law that
accords rights to squatters. Claimant D retained a
local attorney to represent him. Post has sent two
diplomatic notes to the Ministry of foreign Affairs
asking about the status of the case. In July 2003,
the Ministry of Foreign Affairs responded by
transmitting a letter from the mayor of Megistis,
where the property is located. The mayor states in
his letter that claimant does not have the proper
documentation to establish ownership of the property.
On May 23, 2005, claimant's attorney informed
the embassy that he is taking the case to
court because he finally got a witness to
testify in court. The attorney said that
negative publicity on TV in the recent past
concerning illegal activity of the Mayor of
Kastellorizo might help the case.



6. Case 5:

a) Claimant E

b) June 2000

c) In September 1992, Claimant E purchased from the
Department of Land of Dodecanese a 3,200 square
meters piece of land on the island of Rhodes. In
December 1992, the board of a church close to the
property took Claimant E to court claiming that the
property belonged to the church. The local court
ruled against Claimant E as it decided that the
property indeed belonged to the church. Claimant E's
attorney has asked the Department of Land of the
Dodecanese to replace claimant's property with
another piece of land of equal value. Claimant E
informed us on May 12, 2004 that the Department of
Land compensated him by returning the amount he had
paid for the land 12 years ago with no interest.
On May 23, 2005, claimant stated that he plans
to retain the services of another lawyer and
request compensation through local courts for
the financial loss he has suffered.

Claimants' Names
--------------


7. Per ref A, the following are the names of the 5
claimants in the 2004 Greek Investment Disputes and
Expropriation Claims Update:

--Claimant A is Polyform USA, LLC. Polyform is a
wholly owned subsidiary of Science International
Inc., headquartered in Daphne, Alabama. The
president of the company, Dr. Jack Boykin, has sought
assistance from post in writing.
--Claimant B is the Jehovah's Witness Bible and Tract
Society of Pennsylvania, 77 Kifissias Avevue, 151 24
Maroussi, Athens, Greece. A Greek citizen who has
not filed a privacy act waiver is representing the
organization.
--Claimant C is the Mycenaen Foundation, 1270 Avenue
of the Americas, New York, N.Y. 10020-1795. It has
not filed a privacy act waiver, however, it did
request the assistance of the Embassy in writing.
--Claimant D is Charles Thomas McGlade, 4055 Spring
Blvd., Eugene, OR 87405. He has not signed a privacy
act waiver.
--Claimant E is Charles S. Fentules aka Afentoulis,
1231, North Road, Apt. 274, Niles, Ohio 44446. Mr.
Fentules requested embassy's assistance in writing.

RIES