The theme of corruption has dominated political discussion over the last two decades, both in Greece and internationally.

An interesting aspect of the phenomenon is the handling of the fate of civil contracts that are formed within the framework of the act of corruption or as a result of it. Despite the significant legal and economic interest in the issue, it has been minimally addressed in Greek literature and jurisprudence to date.

The study seeks to fill this gap by exploring the procedural law issues that arise in arbitration proceedings, at the stage of the annulment action or during the process of declaring the enforceability of the arbitration award, when one of the parties claims that the disputed transaction conceals an act of corruption or was concluded as a result of such an act.

The subject examined highlights an unexpected intersection of civil procedural, substantive civil, and criminal law, in which the arbitral tribunal, an institution formed by private will, is called upon to perform roles that are akin to those of a criminal court or prosecutorial authority, yet it does not have access to the corresponding investigative and prosecutorial mechanisms.

In this context, the related issues are examined in order: the permissibility of resolving relevant disputes through arbitration, the effect of the affirmation of acts of corruption on the validity of the arbitration clause, the themes of burden of proof and standard of evidence in addressing related issues in arbitration proceedings, the impact of the duty of confidentiality of arbitrators on their potential obligation to report any criminal acts revealed during the evidentiary process of the arbitration proceedings, and particularly, the procedural issues that arise during the review of potential conflicts of the arbitration award with public order.