The statutory basis for challenging cartel behaviour in Greece is enshrined in Law 3959/2011 on the Protection of Free Competition (the “Competition Act” or CA), as amended by Law 4886/2022 on the Modernisation of Competition Law for the Digital Era (GG A’ 12/24.01.2022) and, recently, by Law 5255/2025 (GG A’ 219/28.11.2025). Article 1 of the CA essentially mirrors Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), encompassing all agreements and concerted practices between undertakings and all decisions by associations of undertakings which have as their object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition in Greece, and in particular those which:

• directly or indirectly fix purchase or selling prices or any other trading conditions;
• limit or control production, distribution, technical development or investment;
• share markets or sources of supply;
• apply dissimilar conditions to equivalent trading transactions, especially the unjustified refusal to sell, buy or otherwise trade, thereby hindering the functioning of competition; or
• make the conclusion of contracts subject to acceptance, by the other parties, of supplementary obligations which, by their nature or according to commercial use, have no connection with the subject of such contracts.

This provision is interpreted accordingly by the Hellenic Competition Commission (hereinafter the HCC).

To note also a specific national provision, Article 1A of the CA (“Invitation to collude and announcements relating to communicating future pricing intentions for products and services between competitors”) aims at tackling two different forms of unilateral practices with negative effects on competition, consisting of:

• invitation(s) to collude with the object of preventing, restricting or distorting competition in the Greek territory; or
• announcement(s) relating to communicating mainly future pricing intentions for products or services between undertakings that are competitors (“price signalling”) if the disclosure restricts competition in the Greek territory and is not an ordinary business practice.

Article 1A applies exclusively to undertakings with a total turnover of at least EUR50 million and a workforce of at least 250 employees. On 1 February 2023, the HCC published Guidelines on the implementation of Article 1A.

In respect of private enforcement, Law 4529/2018 (the “Damages Law”) transposes into the Greek legal order the provisions of EU Antitrust Damages Directive 2014/104/EU, providing the applicable framework for the pursuit of damages claims arising from infringements of competition law.

The Public Enforcement Authorities

Hellenic Competition Commission

In Greece, the HCC serves as the primary regulatory body charged with upholding the provisions of the Competition Act. Constituted as an independent authority, the HCC operates with administrative and economic autonomy under the supervisory remit of the Minister of Development, has legal personality and appears in its own right before courts. It is the designated national competition authority (NCA) on the basis of Regulation (EU) 1/2003, competent to enforce Article 101 and 102 TFEU.

The mandate of the HCC in relation to anti-competitive agreements and concerted practices is broad. It has the powers, among others, to do the following:

• initiate proceedings ex officio and upon complaint;
• find infringements of competition law provisions;
• impose administrative fines and other applicable sanctions;
• take interim measures;
• accept binding commitments from undertakings;
• carry out unannounced inspections (commonly referred to as dawn raids);
• deliver opinions on competition law issues;
• take necessary regulatory measures aimed at creating conditions of effective competition in terms of regulatory intervention; and
• conduct sector and market inquiries and mappings.

The HCC further co-operates with the European Commission and its counterpart national competition authorities across member states and conducts market studies and sector inquiries as part of its broader oversight function.

Sector-specific enforcement framework

In electronic communications and postal services, the Hellenic Telecommunications and Post Commission (EETT) has sector-specific regulatory competence under Law 4727/2020. In the energy sector, RAAEY (as renamed by Law 5037/2023) plays an advisory and monitoring role, but competition enforcement in gas and electricity remains exclusively with the HCC. In media, the HCC applies Article 3 of Law 3592/2007, which sets dominance thresholds of 25–35% depending on the relevant media market, applicable in both merger control and abuse of dominance proceedings.

Remedies, Liability and Sanctions

Available remedies upon a finding of infringement

Where the HCC determines that an undertaking has infringed Article 1 or Article 1A of the CA, or Article 101 TFEU, it may:

• issue non-binding recommendations addressed to the undertakings in question;
• proceed to a cease and desist order, requiring the undertakings to bring the infringement to an immediate end and to abstain from such conduct going forward;
• impose behavioural and/or structural remedies; and
• impose financial penalties.

It is noted that whilst corporate undertakings are exposed to administrative fines, individual representatives – as natural persons – face both administrative and criminal liability in case of infringement.

Sanctions must be effective, proportionate and deterrent in their effect.

Administrative fines

The legal maximum for administrative fines is 10% of the undertaking’s aggregate worldwide turnover recorded in the financial year preceding publication of the HCC’s decision. Where the infringer forms part of a corporate group, that ceiling is calculated by reference to the group’s consolidated global turnover. The fine is calibrated to reflect the gravity, duration and geographical reach of the infringement, together with the nature and extent of the individual undertaking’s participation.

Where it is possible to calculate the financial gain secured through the infringement, the fine shall not fall below that figure, even if exceeding the 10% cap.

Individual executives (owners, managers, board members or persons responsible for implementing the infringing decision) are jointly and severally liable with the undertaking for payment of the fine. The HCC may additionally levy separate administrative fines on such individuals of between EUR200,000 and EUR2 million where they participated in preparatory actions or in organising the illegal conduct.

Methodology for Fine Calculation

The HCC’s approach to the calculation of fines follows a structured, two-stage process (see Article 25(2) CA and HCC Guidelines on the Method of Setting Fines). In the first stage, a basic amount is established for each undertaking or association of undertakings. This figure is derived from a percentage – based inter alia on the type and gravity of the infringement – not exceeding 30% of the undertaking’s annual gross turnover attributable to products or services in the markets directly or indirectly affected by the infringement. This percentage is calculated on the above annual revenues for each year of the infringement cumulatively.

As a further deterrent measure, and irrespective of the actual duration of participation, the HCC incorporates into the basic amount an additional sum falling within the range of 15% to 25% of the relevant gross turnover in the affected markets.

The basic amount of the fine may be increased if there are aggravating circumstances or reduced if there are mitigating circumstances.

Criminal and Civil Liability and Sanctions

The power to impose criminal sanctions vests exclusively with the criminal courts. Regarding cartels, upon finding an infringement of Article 1 of the CA, the HCC is under a statutory obligation to refer the matter to the competent prosecution authority within ten days of the date on which its decision is issued. Where the conduct in question relates to cartel activity between competitors, the criminal courts may impose imprisonment of between two and five years, together with a financial penalty ranging from EUR100,000 to EUR1 million.

Civil liability and sanctions in the context of antitrust enforcement rest on the framework established by Law 4529/2018, which introduced a set of substantive and procedural provisions designed to strengthen the ability of injured parties to effectively pursue compensation claims arising from antitrust violations (see also 1.3 Private Enforcement and 4.7 Issuing Civil Complaints).

Private claims for damages arising from cartel infringements are governed by Law 4529/2018 (the “Damages Law”) transposing the EU Antitrust Damages Directive 2014/104/EU. Pursuant to Article 3(1) of that law, any natural or legal person who has sustained harm as a result of a competition law infringement is entitled to claim and receive full compensation for such harm. The scope of recoverable compensation encompasses actual loss, loss of profit and interest accruing from the date on which the harm arose until the date on which compensation is ultimately paid. The law does not, however, provide for the award of punitive damages.

It is not necessary to obtain a prior finding of infringement from the HCC in order to bring such a claim before the civil courts; however, where such a finding exists, it will be binding on the court and will considerably reinforce the claimant’s case (see also 4.7 Issuing Civil Complaints).

The CA does not provide a definition of the term “cartel”. Instead, Article 1 of the CA, which mirrors the prohibition set out in Article 101 TFEU, employs the terminology “prohibited agreements and concerted practices” and identifies specific practices whose object or effect is the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition. The HCC Leniency Programme (HCC Decision 791/2022) refers to cartels as secret horizontal agreements prohibited under Article 1 CA or Article 101 TFEU and, in particular, agreements which affect, directly or indirectly, prices, volumes, market shares or other relevant parameters of competition and/or indicatively agreements on production or sales quotas, market sharing, restrictions on imports or exports, bid rigging and collective boycott (see also 3.1 Leniency).

Agreements between horizontal competitors are per se illegal and thus not subject to a competitive effects analysis. Cartels are therefore treated as “by object” restrictions of competition, on the basis that they give rise to such a degree of harm to competition that there is no need to examine their actual or potential effects.

Exemption under Article 1(3) of the CA (mirroring Article 101(3) TFEU) is available where the pro-competitive benefits meet the requisite conditions. EU block exemption regulations apply mutatis mutandis through Article 1(4) where conduct is unlikely to affect trade between member states.

Article 42 CA establishes a five-year limitation period within which the HCC may impose penalties. This period begins to run from the date on which the infringement was committed or, in the case of continuing infringements, from the date on which they ceased. The limitation period is interrupted by any action taken by the HCC in the course of its investigation in connection with the specific infringement. Actions capable of interrupting the limitation period include, in particular:

• written requests for information issued by the HCC;
• inspection orders;
• the initiation of proceedings in respect of the infringement;
• the assignment of the case to a rapporteur; and
• the notification of a statement of objections (SO).

Following each such interruption, the limitation period re-commences. In any event, the limitation period for the imposition of fines by the HCC may not exceed ten years, provided that no fines have been imposed within that timeframe. The limitation period is suspended for the duration of any pending decision by the HCC or by a court.

The HCC may, if it has a relevant legitimate interest, establish that the infringement has been committed in the past and has been terminated, even though the power to impose a fine has become time-barred.

Pursuant to Article 46 of the CA, the law applies to all restrictions of competition that affect or may affect Greece, including those arising from agreements between undertakings, decisions by associations of undertakings, concerted practices between undertakings or associations of undertakings, or concentrations of undertakings that are implemented or entered into outside Greece, as well as those involving undertakings or associations of undertakings that have no presence in Greece.

The CA does not provide for any exemption or defence in respect of conduct that exclusively affects customers outside the jurisdiction. Export cartels may, however, fall outside the scope of the CA where they have no direct or indirect effect on the Greek market.

The CA neither recognises nor incorporates principles of comity. However, according to Article 28 CA, the HCC closely co-operates with the European Commission and NCAs in the context of Regulation 1/2003, in the context of the European Competition Network (ECN). The HCC also co-operates with other competition authorities (by virtue of memoranda of understanding and co-operation agreements).

Moreover, the HCC co-operates with other competition authorities in the conduct of investigations, and provides necessary assistance, according to Article 38 CA.

Cartel enforcement activity by the HCC has grown considerably, with the authority conducting a substantial number of dawn raids annually across a diverse range of sectors.

Bid rigging in public procurement remains a dominant enforcement priority. Decision 869/2024 arose from an ex officio investigation into potential bid-rigging practices in the cadastre mapping and supporting services market. Recently, also, the HCC conducted a dawn-raid in the sector for water supply, irrigation and sewage/wastewater management, looking into possible bid rigging and/or cartel facilitation.

Price fixing also features prominently in HCC actions, particularly in network industries, with recent dawn raids targeting the electricity production and wholesale supply sector and, in March 2025, the coastal/ferry shipping sector. The overwhelming majority of cases concern domestic markets, spanning sectors such as coastal/ferry shipping, taxi services, electricity, school bags, toys, large household appliances, pet food, coffee, chocolate and infant nutrition.

Ex officio investigations are the primary driver of cartel enforcement in Greece. The settlement procedure has emerged as a resolving cartel cases mechanism, while the leniency programme has continued to yield limited results within the Greek enforcement landscape.

The HCC has published the following written guidelines relating to cartel conduct: 

• Practical guidance concerning the application of the CA (available in Greek only); 
• Guide for contracting authorities (English version);
• HCC decision on leniency programme (available in Greek only);
• HCC decision on settlement procedure (available in Greek only);
• HCC decision on the terms, conditions and relevant procedure for the acceptance of commitments (English version);
• Guidelines for the application of Article 1A of the CA (available in Greek only);
• Guide to competition law for associations of undertakings (available in Greek only);
• Guide to promoting and enhancing competition in public policy planning (available in Greek only);
• Guide to competition in the agricultural sector (available in Greek only);
• Interpretative guidelines on the method of setting fines (available in Greek only);
• Notice on the handling of complaints for competition law infringements (English version);
• Guide to the process of submitting documents to the General Protocol of the Competition Commission (available in Greek only); and
• Practical guide to determining resale prices (available in Greek only).

Investigations may be initiated by the HCC on its own initiative (ex officio), upon receipt of a complaint from a third party or following a leniency application or anonymous information through the secure digital environment (whistle-blowing).

The HCC is under a legal obligation to consider all formally submitted complaints. Nevertheless, pursuant to its case prioritisation framework, the authority is required to address pending matters in accordance with their ranking under a designated points-based system. In practice, the HCC directs its enforcement resources towards cases that carry the greatest likelihood of materially affecting competition in the market and giving rise to consumer harm. Complaints that receive a low ranking may be dismissed by the HCC by way of summary decisions.

Upon becoming aware of alleged cartel conduct, the HCC exercises its formal investigative powers – which include requests for information, on-site inspections (dawn raids), and other related measures – with a view to gathering sufficient evidence to establish an infringement.

Once the matter has been assigned to a Commissioner-Rapporteur, the HCC is obliged to set out in writing the objections to which the parties are subject, by way of a Statement of Objections (SO). The SO serves to ensure that the parties concerned are fully informed of the case being made against them and affords them the opportunity to respond and to bring to the HCC’s attention any information they consider relevant to the proceedings. Following the issuance of the SO, the defence is entitled to access the HCC investigation file.

The HCC is vested with broad investigative powers that mirror those of the European Commission. Among these, the HCC is empowered to inspect business premises by way of dawn raids. Furthermore, the HCC may extend such inspections to the private property of directors, managers and other members of staff of the undertaking concerned, where there is reasonable cause to suspect that they are keeping books or other documents pertaining to the undertaking and the purpose of the inspection may be important to establish an infringement; this is subject to the issuance of a court warrant and the presence of a public prosecutor.

Dawn raids have become increasingly common in Greece. In the second half of 2025, the HCC intensified its conduct of unannounced on-site inspections in the exercise of its supervisory powers, with inspections carried out on undertakings operating in critical economic sectors such as transport and energy, following the collection and assessment of relevant information and indications of potential anti-competitive practices.

Obligations of a firm faced with an HCC cartel inquiry/dawn raid include:

• active and full co-operation (within scope);
• preservation/no obstruction – companies and individuals must not impede, delay, hinder or compromise the integrity/availability of corporate files during a dawn raid. The HCC has imposed very significant fines for obstruction under Article 39(5), stressing the duty of “active and unfailing co-operation” and sanctioned conduct that hindered inspection effectiveness; and
• right to verify (ID and written authorisation/inspection order).

Outside counsel may be present at all stages of an HCC inspection, but their presence is not a legal condition for the inspection’s validity; inspectors may allow a reasonable delay for counsel to arrive (see also 2.4 Role of Counsel).

Officers/employees may be required to assist in the search and provide explanations, as well as access to requested areas and computers, or respond to interviews/provide statements.

Companies can obtain copies of seized/copied material.

Powers of HCC Inspectors

HCC officials may:

• examine and copy books and documents;
• inspect mobile devices, servers and cloud systems;
• seal premises; and
• take sworn or unsworn witness statements.

Upon conclusion of the inspection, the undertaking receives an electronic copy of all material seized. The inspection scope is limited to documents relevant to the subject matter, time period and sectors specified in the inspection order. LPP-protected communications and self-incrimination are expressly excluded from the HCC’s powers.

In order to prevent the destruction or concealment of potentially relevant material, the HCC may seal offices, documents and IT systems during a dawn raid. Any interference with such seals – intentional or otherwise – constitutes a serious obstruction offence. The duty to preserve evidence arises from the moment of the inspection. Obstruction of HCC investigations, refusal to supply information and submission of inaccurate material are criminal offences carrying a custodial sentence of no less than six months, in addition to monetary fines (see also 2.7 Non-Cooperation).

Both external and in-house counsel may be present during a dawn raid, though their presence is not a condition for the validity of the inspection. Counsel may not respond to questions on behalf of the interviewee or intervene in proceedings. Counsel may also attend the unsealing of evidence, which typically occurs approximately one month after the dawn raid.

During the initial phase, defence counsel should:

• review the inspection order and ascertain its scope (markets, time period, premises);
• verify inspectors’ credentials and legal basis;
• open a dawn raid log and lead all contact with inspectors;
• ensure LPP is observed and that seized documents are marked confidential; and
• prevent any tampering with documents or obstruction of the investigation.

The HCC uses its investigative powers, evidence derived from complaints, market information but also leniency or whistleblower-derived evidence as well as RFIs, testimonies and forensic/economic reconstruction to prove cartel behaviour. Evidence examined by inspectors may take either printed or digital form, the latter encompassing material stored on the undertaking’s server or in the cloud. In respect of electronic files, the search may be conducted in any manner the HCC considers appropriate, including by searching files and texts using keywords or by navigating through folders and files, metadata timeline of communications and recovery of deleted files.

In addition to its power to gather evidence during an inspection, the HCC may also require undertakings to submit specified categories of information, whether in writing or through an online platform or electronic interface. Compliance with such requests is mandatory, and the deadline for responding is fewer than ten calendar days.

For the purpose of establishing infringements of Articles 1 and 1A of the CA, as well as Article 101 TFEU, the HCC is empowered to summon any representative of an undertaking to provide sworn or unsworn witness statements. During the course of such a statement, the declarant is entitled to be assisted by a lawyer; however, the lawyer is not permitted to answer questions on the declarant’s behalf or to intervene in the proceedings.

Finally, the HCC may also invite any representative of an undertaking – as well as any other natural person – to participate as witness in the proceedings before the HCC, provided that the relevant invitation is submitted no fewer than five days prior to the date of the discussion.

Attorney-client privilege extends to communications made for the purposes of, and in the interests of, the client’s rights of defence in competition proceedings; protection applies solely to communications from independent lawyers, aligned with EU competition jurisprudence. Communications to and from in-house lawyers are not regarded by the HCC as falling within the scope of legal professional privilege.

In addition to attorney-client privilege, the privilege against self-incrimination is also recognised and applicable in Greece (see also 2.2 Dawn Raids/Search Warrants).

Resistance to information requests is uncommon in practice. Where an undertaking refuses, obstructs or provides inaccurate information, the HCC may impose:

• daily fines on the undertaking of up to 3% of average daily global turnover;
• daily fines on employees of EUR15,000 to EUR30,000 per day;
• fines on other obstructing natural persons of EUR15,000 to EUR2 million; or
• for associations of undertakings, fines of up to 10% of members’ total global turnover.

Law 5255/2025, implementing the ECN+ Directive, introduced an additional lump-sum fine of up to 1% of worldwide turnover for obstruction or non-compliance with information requests, complementing existing daily periodic penalties.

HCC members and staff are subject to the duty of confidentiality laid down in the Code on the status of civil servants and of employees of legal persons governed by public law (Law 3528/2007). This also applies to the members of the HCC and staff of the HCC who have left the HCC.

Undertakings concerned are entitled to protect their confidential information from broad disclosure. The HCC redacts from the SO and decision any confidential material or business-secrets – such as financial data, market share data, production secrets or supply sources – as well as any information that could lead to the identification of third parties who wish to remain anonymous. The protection afforded to confidential information applies regardless of whether such information was provided pursuant to a compulsory legal procedure or through voluntary co-operation.

Moreover, any information disclosed within the context of the leniency programme is treated as confidential and may not be disclosed or used for any purpose other than the application of Article 1 of the CA.

Typically, defence counsel for a subject or target of a cartel investigation raises legal and factual arguments regarding the enforcement agency action as follows.

• Immediately after the dawn raid: procedural objections are lodged, and substantiated context is provided through RFI responses before the SO crystallises.
• Pre-SO: “state-of-play” meetings with the case team are held to discuss leniency, commitments or settlement.
• Post-SO: access to the non-confidential file, written submissions and an oral hearing – including examination of witnesses and experts – represent the principal opportunity to persuade the HCC not to issue an infringement decision, or to improve the undertaking’s position.

The CA includes a detailed leniency regime modelled on the EU leniency programme, providing for either full immunity or a reduction of fines (ie, partial immunity) (see HCC Decision 791/2022 establishing the national Leniency Programme – LP). The LP applies exclusively to horizontal cartels under Article 1 of the CA and Article 101 TFEU, and covers undertakings, associations of undertakings, and natural persons liable to fines (see also 3.2 Amnesty/Immunity).

Full immunity is available to the first applicant that:

• discloses participation in a cartel and has not coerced others to join or remain;
• submits evidence enabling the HCC to conduct a targeted dawn raid or to establish the infringement; and
• satisfies the general co-operation conditions (continuous and genuine co-operation, no destruction of evidence, no misleading information).

Partial immunity (fine reduction) is available to subsequent applicants that:

• provide evidence adding significant value to what the HCC already holds; and
• satisfy the general co-operation conditions.

Reductions are up to 50% for undertakings and up to 70% for natural persons, proportionate to contribution.

A marker system aligned with the ECN Leniency Programme is available. Applicants may submit a partial application and be granted a marker protecting their place in the queue for a specified period, while they gather sufficient evidence. The marker application must include:

• the identity of alleged cartel members;
• the affected geographical and product markets;
• the duration of the cartel; and
• the nature of the conduct and any applications filed with other NCAs.

Where requirements are met, leniency is typically granted, as the procedure is highly structured. The HCC retains limited discretion on whether evidence is “sufficient” and whether co-operation was “full and continuous”. In practice, use of the leniency programme remains relatively limited.

Leniency approval (with full immunity or fine reduction combined with full payment) eliminates criminal liability for individuals concerned. Immunity from fines does not, however, extend to civil liability in damages proceedings.

There is no amnesty regime under the CA.

In 2021, the HCC launched a secure digital whistle-blowing platform enabling the anonymous reporting of anti-competitive conduct, modelled on standards adopted by the European Commission and peer national competition authorities across the EU. The platform is available to both citizens and businesses and is not limited to bid rigging in public procurement, but applies to all forms of anti-competitive behaviour, as well as to contracting authorities that are specifically encouraged to submit reports where they have knowledge of the following practices:

• collusive tendering and bid rigging;
• cover bidding;
• bid suppression;
• bid rotation; and
• market allocation.

The Whistleblowing System for Citizens and Business and the Whistleblowing System for Contracting Authoritiesare available in English online on the Hellenic Competition Commission website.

The HCC has broad powers to seek information directly from current company employees, with authorised inspectors having the ability to request such information in writing. On‑site questioning during dawn raids and interviews as well as formal written requests addressed to the undertaking but entailing employee input are regularly used. Under Article 38 of the CA, the HCC may require any natural person – including employees – to provide all necessary information. Interviews and requests for information addressed to natural persons are framed in a manner that respects the right against self-incrimination.

While the CA does not expressly address former employees, the HCC’s broad power to request information from any natural person means that it may, where relevant to an investigation, also seek statements from individuals who are no longer employed by the undertaking concerned.

Hence, a duty to co-operate is in place, however this is not unlimited. There is no obligation to admit infringement (privilege against self-incrimination applies), there is a right to counsel and legal professional privilege (LPP) applies, as well as general administrative law rules pertaining to proportionality and relevance.

The HCC’s broad investigative powers are set out in Articles 38 and 39 of the CA, and mirror those of the European Commission under Regulation (EU) 1/2003.

Under the CA, the HCC can require undertakings to produce documents and data, access documents via dawn raids and demand written explanations linked to documents. This applies to targets/subjects of investigation and third parties (customers, suppliers, competitors). The HCC must tie requests to the subject matter and purpose of the investigation and abide by EU law principles of proportionality, confidentiality and data integrity, good administration, and observe LPP and the privilege against self-incrimination.

Article 38(2A) provides that the HCC President or an authorised HCC official may summon any representative of a company or association of companies, representatives of companies or associations of companies, representatives of other legal persons, as well as any other natural person to sworn or unsworn witness statements. Further, as per Article 38(2B), the HCC may call to deliberations any representative of a company or association of companies, representatives of companies or associations of companies, representatives of other legal persons, as well as any other natural person, with invitation, which is submitted to the above persons at least five days before the date of the discussion. In addition, pursuant to Article 39 CA, the officials of the Directorate General for Competition are vested with the investigative powers of tax auditors.

The HCC can obtain evidence that is physically located outside Greece, but how it does so depends on whether the evidence (or the person/company holding it) is inside the EU/EEA and whether it is within the “possession, custody or control” of an undertaking established in Greece.

If the evidence/person is in another EU member state, the HCC can use the European Competition Network (ECN) co-operation mechanisms. Outside the EU/EEA, the HCC may rely on voluntary co-operation and/or indirect acquisition via the undertaking established in Greece.

If the company/person is in Greece, typically, if the evidence is available to it, it must produce evidence located abroad (eg, on an overseas server or cloud region).

In the case of third‑country blocking statutes/secrecy laws, a fact‑specific risk‑managed process will apply.

The HCC co-operates with sector-specific regulators, including EETT, and has signed memoranda of co-operation with the Hellenic Regulatory Authority for Energy, the Regulatory Authority for Ports, the Hellenic Capital Market Commission, the Hellenic Data Protection Authority and, most recently, the Hellenic Single Public Procurement Authority (February 2026). Law 5255/2025 introduced Article 38A CA, authorising the HCC to interconnect with public sector and third-party information systems and access the national procurement system (ESIDIS) directly – with information obtained usable solely for competition law enforcement purposes.

The HCC co-operates closely with the European Commission and EU NCAs within the ECN framework, enabling the exchange of confidential evidence and mutual investigative assistance. It maintains bilateral memoranda of co-operation with non-EU counterparts in Morocco, South Africa, Israel, Egypt, Serbia, Albania, North Macedonia, Armenia and Cyprus. Greece is an active member of the ICN and the OECD; the HCC Vice-President was re-elected to the OECD Competition Committee Bureau for 2026. Since September 2024, the HCC has been participating in a two-year OECD transnational project aimed at combating collusion in public tenders.

Criminal cartel-related proceedings in Greece follow an inquisitorial, prosecutor‑led system, where cases are filtered by judicial councils, tried before professional judges under a “beyond reasonable doubt” standard, and defendants have structured access to evidence (after suspect status established). The HCC does not possess the power to impose criminal sanctions, which falls within the exclusive competence of the criminal courts. Criminal proceedings are initiated by the Public Prosecutor, either upon referral by the HCC, receipt of a complaint or ex officio, following which a preliminary investigation is conducted during which the defendant has the right to be heard. Upon completion, the prosecutor evaluates initial evidence and may open a preliminary examination, or archive the complaint for insufficient evidence or order further investigation. The prosecutor bears the burden of establishing the defendant’s guilt, while the court tribunal applies the law to the established facts.

Cartel cases before the criminal courts are heard by a tribunal of professional judges, who examine all arguments and evidence put forward by the defendants. In the assessment of evidence, documentary evidence takes precedence over witness testimony. Admissible forms of evidence include:

• documentary evidence, such as contracts, email correspondence and notes;
• expert reports;
• witness statements;
• judicial documents; and
• certified documents.

From the initiation of criminal proceedings until their conclusion, defendants have access to the prosecutor’s file, which may include findings of the HCC.

Law 4529/2018, incorporating into Greek Law Directive 2014/104/EU on private damages arising out of competition law infringements, provides binding effect in Greece of final infringement decisions of the Greek/EU competition authorities for follow‑on damages actions, whereas decisions from other member states may constitute strong evidence (subject to rebuttal). It also introduces a rebuttable presumption that cartels cause harm, easing the claimant’s burden on harm in cartel cases.

Antitrust damages claims are brought before the specialist section of the Athens Court of First Instance (three competition law judges), with appeals heard by the Athens Court of Appeal. A prior HCC infringement decision is not required to pursue such a claim.

Once filed, the claim must be served within 30 calendar days, followed by pleadings and evidence within 90 days, and counter-pleadings within a further 15 days. Parties must attend a mandatory mediation session before filing pleadings; any successful mediation agreement is ratified by the court as an enforceable title.

Claimants may request court-ordered disclosure of evidence held by the defendant or third parties, subject to demonstrating a plausible claim. Access to HCC files is permitted only as a last resort, and leniency statements and settlement submissions remain strictly confidential and inadmissible in damages proceedings.

In the context of HCC proceedings, parties are permitted to retain and submit expert opinions – most commonly from economists – in support of their positions. The CA expressly authorises the HCC to engage its own experts and specialists, whether individuals or legal entities, whenever it considers such consultation necessary and appropriate. Economic experts are most commonly involved in cartel and merger cases. They are also engaged in connection with the quantification of harm in civil litigation and the evaluation of competitive effects.

As a general principle, simultaneous enforcement proceedings before the HCC between the same parties involving identical facts are prohibited (ne bis in idem). However, HCC proceedings and civil and criminal court proceedings may take place simultaneously in respect of the same cartel infringement. Hence in Greece it is possible for the same underlying facts to give rise to:

• administrative proceedings before the HCC;
• civil damages actions (standalone or follow-on); and
• criminal proceedings.

However, if the act is being investigated by the HCC or any other competent authority, the Public Prosecutor shall suspend any further action following the preliminary investigation, pending a decision by the HCC, with the assent of the Prosecutor of the Courts of Appeal. The case is not brought before the court before the final decision on the appeal against the decision of the HCC.

The HCC may bring enforcement actions against multiple parties within a single proceeding. Hybrid settlement decisions – whereby some defendants settle while others follow the standard procedure – are permissible and have been adopted by the HCC, with the one such decision issued in cartel proceedings in HCC Decision 642/2017 in the construction sector.

As regards the cumulative imposition of criminal and administrative sanctions, Greek jurisprudence has established that the ne bis in idem principle is not violated where an administrative sanction is imposed on a legal person and a criminal sanction is simultaneously imposed on a natural person for the same infringement, given the absence of identity between the natural persons subject to each sanction.

The HCC does not hold the power to impose criminal sanctions, which falls exclusively within the competence of the criminal courts. For further details, please refer to 4.6 Issuing Criminal Indictments.

In administrative proceedings, the CA provides a settlement procedure under which undertakings make an unequivocal acknowledgement of liability in exchange for a 15% fine reduction. The procedure – now extended to vertical agreements, abuse of dominance and Article 1A conduct through Article 29A CA – is compatible with leniency, with both reductions applied cumulatively. Settlement discussions are confidential and may not be used in subsequent damages proceedings. Settling parties waive their rights to full file access, an oral hearing and certain grounds of appeal, though the settlement decision remains subject to judicial review.

Where the settlement fine is paid in full and the settling party actively co-operates with both the HCC and the public prosecutor – provided the application was submitted before criminal prosecution was initiated – criminal and administrative liability, including debarment from public tenders, are waived.

Establishing liability strengthens a claimant’s position in follow-on damages actions and may result in debarment from public procurement procedures under Article 73(4)(c) of the Greek Public Procurement Code. Under Article 44(3C) CA, said debarment is waived – except in cases of recidivism – where the undertaking has benefited from leniency or settlement and paid its fines in full.

Settlement entails an unequivocal acknowledgement of liability, which may encourage third-party damages claims, and entails the waiving of the parties’ rights to full file access, an oral hearing, and any challenge to the HCC’s jurisdiction or the validity of the procedure.

Under Article 44(1) of the CA, any person who executes an agreement, takes a decision or applies a concerted practice in breach of Article 1 CA or Article 101 TFEU is liable to a fine of between EUR15,000 and EUR150,000. Where the conduct involves undertakings in actual or potential competition with each other, the sanctions are more severe, comprising a custodial sentence of at least two years and a fine of between EUR100,000 and EUR1 million. Criminal sanctions are imposed exclusively by the criminal courts, not the HCC, which determines the precise amount of the fine and the duration of imprisonment on a case-by-case basis.

No publicly available information exists regarding criminal sanctions imposed for cartel conduct by Greek courts. In practice, criminal sanctions remain rare.

When criminal courts determine the appropriate sanctions, the existence of a compliance programme within a company may be considered as a factor in mitigation, though any such consideration remains subject to the particular circumstances of each case.

Turning to administrative proceedings before the HCC, the CA makes no provision for an automatic fine reduction on the basis that a compliance programme was operative at the time the infringement was committed.

Collective consumer redress mechanisms are available only in respect of violations of consumer law legislation, whereas Law 4529/2018 itself does not contain specific collective redress or representative action mechanisms. Any compensation claims by consumers must be pursued through private civil litigation before the competent courts.

HCC decisions may be appealed before the Administrative Court of Appeal of Athens within 60 calendar days of their publication or, where no publication has taken place, of their notification to the parties. An appeal does not have suspensory effect on the sanctions imposed unless the appellate court issues a specific order to that effect.

The following parties have standing to appeal:

• undertakings or associations of undertakings against which the decision was issued;
• the complainant;
• the government, through the Minister of Development; and
• any third party with a legitimate interest.

The Administrative Court of Appeal of Athens acts as a court of first instance, conducting a full review of both the factual and legal aspects of the case. It may uphold or annul the HCC decision in whole or in part, reduce the fine imposed or refer the case back to the HCC. Judicial appeals are very common in practice and most infringement decisions are appealed (excluding settlements). As a result of the appeal, full annulment is rare, but partial annulment with some reduction of the fines is usual.

The decision of the Court of Appeals may be further appealed on points of law before the Council of State by way of a petition for annulment, which must be filed within 60 days of the issuance of the Court of Appeals’ decision. The appeal before the Council of State is limited only to points of Law.

A cartel enforcement proceeding in Greece, from dawn raid to the conclusion of an appeal, typically takes between two and four years. More specifically, the proceeding before the HCC alone – from dawn raid to the issuance of its decision – takes approximately two years, with any subsequent appeal before the administrative courts adding a further two years.

Private damage claims for cartel infringements in Greece are governed by Law 4529/2018, transposing the EU Damages Directive. Under Article 3(1), any natural or legal person who has suffered harm caused by a competition law infringement is entitled to full compensation, covering actual damage, loss of profit and interest from the time the harm occurred until payment. For further information, please refer to 4.7 Issuing Civil Complaints.

Damages awards are the most common (though historically modest in volume).

Neither the Damages Law nor the CA contains specific provisions on collective actions in competition law matters and class actions are not available for cartel infringements in Greece. Collective consumer redress mechanisms remain limited to violations of consumer law legislation. However, under the general rules of civil procedure, multiple claimants may bring collective actions jointly.

Pursuant to Article 11(1) of Law 4529/2018, any person who has suffered harm as a result of the infringement – whether a direct or indirect purchaser from the infringer – is entitled to bring a claim for compensation. Indirect purchasers are, however, required to demonstrate that the overcharge was passed on to them. Claims by umbrella purchasers, consistent with the Court of Justice’s ruling in Case C-557/12 Kone, may equally be pursued before the Greek courts.

The Damages Law in Article 11(2) expressly provides defendants with the right to invoke the “passing on” defence, allowing them to contend that the claimant transferred all or part of the overcharge arising from the competition law infringement to third parties, and is therefore not entitled to full compensation. When quantifying the amount of the overcharge, the civil court may proceed on the basis of probability, applying a reduced standard of proof.

See 4.7 Issuing Civil Complaints.

Given the nascent state of private enforcement, it is not yet possible to draw conclusions regarding the frequency of claims proceeding to full litigation or the typical timeframe from inception to resolution.

Successful claimants are generally entitled to recover their legal costs, with the exact amount determined by the court. Court-awarded costs are typically significantly lower than actual fees.

Unsuccessful parties bear the legal costs of court proceedings, including attorneys’ fees.

Decisions of the Athens Court of First Instance in private civil litigation may be appealed before the Athens Court of Appeal, which conducts a full review of both factual and legal points. The decision of the Athens Court of Appeal may in turn be appealed before the Greek Supreme Court, which is limited to reviewing points of law only.

Under Article 1 of the CA, mirroring Article 101 TFEU, the exchange of commercially sensitive information may constitute a cartel offence, including through hub-and-spoke arrangements. Article 1A of the CA goes further by capturing the unilateral provision of commercially sensitive information as a standalone infringement – a provision with no TFEU equivalent.

Article 1A is limited in scope and applies only to undertakings with a total turnover of at least EUR50 million and at least 250 employees. It does not extend to disclosures or invitations arising in vertical relationships or between an undertaking and a final consumer, unless these have a horizontal object or effect.

HCC has identified information-sharing, including through trade associations and pricing platforms, as a continuing enforcement priority, and has issued guidelines under Article 1A setting out detailed criteria for assessing whether pricing information disclosures restrict effective competition.

While the HCC has expressed interest in the potential use of AI and pricing algorithms as components of cartel offences, no such enforcement decisions have been issued to date. Also, the HCC has issued a number of decisions in vertical cases involving pricing co-ordination cases which increasingly involve digital monitoring systems.

Article 40 of the CA introduced provisions for the investigation of algorithmic methods where suspicions arise of a restriction or distortion of competition, equipping the HCC with a framework to address algorithmic collusion.

In terms of digital capabilities, the HCC monitors prices and quantities for over 60,000 product codes daily through its Data Analytics and Economic Intelligence platform. Law 5255/2025 introduced Article 38A CA, expressly authorising the HCC to deploy AI systems and digital tools – including public internet data extraction, interconnection with public sector and third-party information systems, and direct access to the national procurement system (ESIDIS) – in the exercise of its investigative powers.

Monopolisation is not regarded as a potential cartel offence in Greece. It would be scrutinised under abuse of dominance rules (Article 2 Law 3959/2011/Article 102 TFEU).

In 2025, the HCC conducted unannounced inspections in the passenger transport and electric energy wholesale sectors, alongside market mapping exercises in veterinary medicinal products and the agrifood sector. It also launched sector inquiries into private healthcare and related insurance services, as well as bank deposits, and pursued a regulatory intervention concerning petroleum products.

Cartel enforcement activity was limited. Notable decisions include the following.

• HCC Decision No 853/2024 – Adopted under the simplified settlement procedure, accepting HSBC Continental Europe’s settlement submission for a horizontal agreement.
• HCC Decision No 869/2024 – Also adopted under the simplified settlement procedure, imposing aggregate fines of EUR1,081,339.64 on 18 undertakings active in the cadastral surveying services market for bid-rigging in connection with the creation of the National Cadastre.

Looking ahead, typical sectors for HCC enforcement activity are, especially, public procurement/bid‑rigging, as well as consumer-sensitive sectors including retail and maritime transport.

The HCC imposes significant fines for obstruction of dawn raids or destruction of evidence. In the HCC Decision No 835/2023, the HCC imposed a fine of EUR9,200,000 on the company (unanimous), and a fine of EUR50,000 on the natural person (by majority) for obstructing an on-site investigation.

In an earlier case, HCC Decision No 745/2021 imposed a fine of EUR1 million on a natural person and EUR200,000 on the undertaking for obstructing an on-site inspection and destroying evidence, including the deletion of emails during a dawn raid.

Notably, the HCC possesses the technical capability to retrieve deleted files and communications. To date, the HCC has not conducted virtual dawn raids or inspections of domestic premises, nor has it issued standalone formal guidance on the preservation of ephemeral communications or messaging application data.

The HCC applies the standards and criteria established by the European Commission when assessing “no poach” agreements and labour market allocation conducts. Hence, agreements between competitors not to hire each other’s employees (“no poach”), agreements to fix wages and agreements to allocate labour markets are likely to be treated as restrictions of competition “by object”.

The Leniency Programme seems to continue to have limited success in Greece and there seems to be a decrease (or at best stagnation) in leniency filings in Greece in recent years, broadly consistent with the EU‑wide trend, although filings still occur in significant cartel cases.

A recent illustration of the Leniency Programme in action is Settlement Decision 869/2024 – Cadastral Surveying (Bid Rigging), in which both programmes applied in combination (see 7.4 Focus on Certain Industries/Sectors).

The trend thus points strongly towards ex officio investigations, supported by the HCC’s digital monitoring capabilities and its active dawn raid programme, rather than leniency-driven enforcement.

A large majority of cartel investigations in Greece are domestic in nature, and this is expected to remain unchanged in the near term.

Regarding ESG mandates and policies, in 2022, the HCC established the Sustainable Development Sandbox, a framework within which businesses may develop and submit proposals advancing sustainable development, subject to HCC evaluation before market implementation. Under Article 37A CA, the HCC may also issue “no-action letters” (Decision 789/2022) for business plans pursuing public interest or sustainability objectives – a limited comfort mechanism, but not a binding safe harbour. Any anti-competitive communication between competitors remains subject to HCC scrutiny even where it arises in an ESG context.

Post-pandemic inflationary pressures and supply chain disruptions continue to shape HCC enforcement priorities. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the HCC focused on essential goods, public health and consumer protection markets. The subsequent energy crisis and inflationary environment following the Russian-Ukrainian war have reinforced these concerns, driving sustained scrutiny of energy, food and retail sectors.