The identification of another party’s asset position is crucial for creditors in formulating an effective enforcement strategy. Either prior, during or upon embarking on litigation proceedings, creditors can utilise an array of legal, financial and investigative tools to ascertain a debtor’s asset position and ensure that the debtor’s assets suffice for the satisfaction of their claims.
General Means of Identifying Assets
Land cadastre
The land cadastre (Ktimatologio)records detailed data on ownership and other in rem rights over immovable property, including mortgages, easements and liens, as well as providing information as to whether the immovable asset in question is the subject of a legal dispute. It also tracks changes in ownership due to sales or inheritance and provides access title deeds and all other relevant underlying documents. Access is available online for most regions, but some areas – in which the record is still solely kept in hard copy (land registry offices, or Ypothikofilakia) – still require on-site visits. Only authorised representatives such as lawyers and notaries can access these records.
General Commercial Business Registry
The General Commercial Business Registry (Genikó Emporikó Mitróo Epicheiríseon, or GEMI) provides free-of-charge elaborate information on a company’s name, seat, tax identification number, and articles of association. Most importantly, GEMI provides management and yearly financial statements, as well as various information regarding the company’s shareholders, depending on the type of the company registered and details on corporate ownership in general. In fact, if a company fails to upload its yearly financial statements, any further publication is suspended. The publication of the company’s management – along with the names of the partners – is of essence because, under Greek law, one’s shares to a company are subject of seizure.
Other than the company’s financial statements, GEMI contains information in relation to the status of a company – namely, whether restructuring proceedings have been initiated or whether the company was declared insolvent or whether liquidation is about to commence. GEMI is accessible to the general public via its website and allows research to be conducted on the basis of various criteria, thus facilitating public inspection and identification of a company’s asset position.
Insolvency Registry
The Insolvency Registry (Mitróo Aferegiotitas) is an online database listing insolvent persons and entities, including basic information (such as names and tax identification numbers) about insolvency proceedings. Detailed records (including information about third-party claims “announced” to the insolvency administrator) can be inspected at the court of first instance.
Financial institutions
Even though banks typically do not disclose client information, this rule is encroached upon once the creditor imposes a seizure in the debtor’s bank accounts. In such case, the bank is obliged to seize the debtor’s accounts up to the amount of the claim and disclose the relevant data to the debtor imposing the seizure.
Tiresias credit bureau
Tiresias is a credit bureau that collects and disseminates data on credit history and financial behaviour, including loans, credit cards, and other liabilities. Tiresias provides credit reports to financial institutions for the purposes of assessing one’s creditworthiness and also maintains a general registry of non-performing loans and overdue obligations. Access is granted under strict conditions in order to ensure data protection and privacy.
Administrative authorities
Under specific circumstances and with legitimate interest, tax offices may disclose information on a person’s declared income, property and assets.
Miscellaneous registries
Other useful registries include the auction registry (which allows one to determine if a third party’s assets have been seized and are about to be involuntarily sold), the ships and aircraft registry, and the Intellectual Property Organization (IPO)’s trade mark registry. The pledge registry is being digitalised, with a bill introduced in May 2024. The ultimate beneficiary owners (UBOs) registry may also provide information – although not all companies are required to disclose such details. Access to these registries is often restricted.
Movable property not listed in these registries is challenging to locate, owing to the lack of dedicated tracking tools.
Litigation Proceedings for Identifying Assets
Identifying assets through litigation is limited. In the pre-judgment phase, exhibit production decisions can potentially be of help to creditors – albeit having to satisfy a very high procedural threshold to be successful. Post-judgment, creditors with enforceable titles can request a detailed asset list from the debtor, as per Article 952 of the Greek Code of Civil Procedure (GCCP). This list must include asset alienations in the past five years and be sworn under oath by the debtor as to its accuracy and completeness.
Post-judgment (assuming the judgment is enforceable), bailiffs may also be ordered to locate and seize the debtor’s property. Additionally, bailiffs can track down all the movable and immovable property of the debtor and even seize relevant documents from notaries. Irrespective of whether assets have been identified, various tools are available to seize property, impose freezing orders, or establish judicial escrows.
In Greece, court judgments are categorised based on several criteria.
Participation of Litigant Parties
Relief Sought and Granted
Binding Effect
Revocability
Subject Matter
Judgments are also discerned according to whether the court tried the case on its merits or whether it just dealt with a procedural matter, usually rejecting the action as inadmissible.
Injunctive Relief
Injunctive measures and provisional orders are notably enforced without the need to be engulfed with “executory power” (Article 700, paragraph 2(1) and paragraphs 3 and 4 of the GCCP). As regards the general need for enforceable titles to be engulfed with “executory power”, please refer to 2.2 Enforcement of Domestic Judgments.
Enforceable Titles (Article 904 of the GCCP)
Not all judgments are enforceable. Typically, only definitive judgments – which cannot be challenged – are enforceable. First-instance judgments are generally not enforceable unless declared provisionally enforceable by the court. Other enforceable titles include:
Following the obtaining of an enforceable title (as described in 2.1 Types of Domestic Judgments), actual enforcement proceedings are to follow. The enforcement procedure, as well as the means of enforcement, vary depending on the nature of the enforceable claim.
Types of Claims
Direct-Indirect (Principal) vs Auxiliary Enforcement
Enforcement proceedings are further divided into three categories based on the manner performed and the result they bring about, as follows.
Objective vs Personal Enforcement
Means of Enforcement
The GCCP provides one or more means of enforcement for each type of enforcement:
Procedural Steps
Regarding service for the above-mentioned actions, the GCCP provides detailed provisions, including electronic service (Article 122A of the GCCP). Intra-EU service is effected through Regulation (EC) No 2020/1784 and concerns actual service to the debtor (as opposed to “deemed” service effected upon receipt by the competent prosecutor per Articles 134 and 136, paragraph 1 of the GCCP). The same also applies with regard to international (non-EU) service pursuant to the provisions of the 1965 Hague Convention, ratified in Greece by Law 1334/1984 and/or under any bilateral treaty.
Enforcement-Related Costs
Enforcement costs fall on the judgment-debtor but are advanced by the judgment-creditor (Article 932 of the GCCP). These include all costs incurred by the creditor to the extent that they were necessary for the enforcement proceedings, from commencement to conclusion. Typical costs involved in enforcement proceedings are those related to:
Costs incurred due to the creditor’s excessive diligence or own fault in seeking to enforce its claim(s) are not recoverable.
Timing Considerations
Legislative steps have been taken towards reducing the time necessary for enforcement proceedings through the revamping of certain GCCP provisions (eg, Article 954 and Article 973 of the GCCP) and the broader digitalisation agenda of the Greek State. These notably concern “forced auctions”, which under the new provisions must take place within five to six months following the conclusion of the attachment proceedings. The new provisions also provide for abridged deadlines in debtor challenges against enforcement actions (Article 934 of the GCCP) (for further details, please refer to 2.5 Challenging Enforcement of Domestic Judgments). Regardless, enforcement proceedings in Greece remain a long and arduous process, notably owing to significant backlogs in court dockets and under-staffing.
Garnishment Orders (Article 982 of the GCCP)
One of the more common and effective ways of satisfying monetary claims (see 2.2 Enforcement of Domestic Judgments) is through garnishment orders. These are orders served to third parties, against which the debtor appears to have a claim. These third parties are usually banks where the judgment-debtor holds an account, meaning the debtor has a claim against these banks for the payment of the monies contained in the debtor’s account.
The process for seeking enforcement through these orders is as follows:
These declarations are submitted with the competent court; it will also be possible to submit these electronically, once the relevant digital platform is established (for the time being, the law only provides a theoretical possibility). If the third party responds positively, the creditor takes the position of the debtor vis-à-vis the third party and obtains a direct claim against the third party up to the amount of the creditor’s original claim contained in the garnishment order. If the third party fails to make a declaration within the prescribed time period or proceeds to make an inaccurate declaration, then that third party is liable towards the judgment-creditor.
Please refer to 1.1 Options to Identify Another Party’s Asset Position, 2.2 Enforcement of Domestic Judgments and 2.3 Costs and Time Taken to Enforce Domestic Judgments.
In the post-judgment phase, servicing garnishment orders to third parties against which the debtor has a claim affords the creditor access to the archives of banking institutions in which its debtor holds accounts. This drastic change in favour of judgment-creditors first came about in 2001, with the enactment of Law 2915/2001, and became more established with Law 3994/2011 and particularly Law 4335/2015, which added a fifth paragraph to Article 983 of the GCCP pertaining to the invalidity of any bank privacy rules vis-à-vis any creditor having the right to attach the assets of the beneficiary of the bank account. In practice, creditors of monetary claims equipped with enforceable titles with executory power will service garnishment orders to the four main systemic banks in Greece, as well as often to smaller banks – especially when they become apprised of information that their debtors may have monies deposited in those banks.
The debtor’s asset list contemplated in Article 952 of the GCCP and discussed in 1.1 Options to Identify Another Party’s Asset Position and the debtor’s oath of manifestation discussed in 2.2 Enforcement of Domestic Judgments are also ways of assessing a creditor’s asset position post-judgment.
As already outlined in 2.2 Enforcement of Domestic Judgments, the enforcement process is both rigid and meticulously regulated, requiring strict adherence to procedural formalities and deadlines. This notwithstanding, enforcement proceedings bring about a raw and often unbridled intervention to a debtor’s personal property. This powerful intervention – even under the strict procedural rules to which it is subject – is counterbalanced by a proliferate set of debtor defences linked to invalidities in the enforcement proceedings and the actions that they comprise. These invalidities generally have to be declared as such by the competent court at the defendant’s motion (Article 159 and Article 160, paragraph 1 of the GCCP); until that happens, they keep producing their legal effects in full.
Objections Against Enforcement Actions (Articles 933–937 of the GCCP)
Lodging objections against the validity of enforcement actions before the competent court is the main defensive tool of judgment-debtors and the only legal remedy available that can lead to the avoidance of wrongful enforcement acts. A priori debtor waivers from their right to lodge objections are invalid for being contrary to Article 20 of the Greek Constitution, which encompasses objections within its protective ambit.
The legal remedy of “objections” is exclusively defensive in nature (primarily for debtors but also for third parties whose rights are being impacted on account of the enforcement – Article 936 of the GCCP concerns third-party objections). Per the black letter of the law (Article 933, paragraph 1 of the GCCP), objections may only concern:
Process for Lodging Objections
Objections are generally lodged before a single-member court of first instance (Article 933, paragraph 1 of the GCCP) and then a certified copy thereof is served to the creditor by a process agent (court bailiff). The initial court document of objections must contain at least one clear ground in order to be admissible; additional grounds can be brought forward through a subsequent court document of additional grounds, which must be served at least eight days before the hearing (Article 933, paragraph 3 of the GCCP). The hearing must in theory be scheduled within 60 days of filing, with the summons served 20 days prior (Article 933, paragraph 2 of the GCCP).
Deadlines
In cases of indirect enforcement (see 2.2 Enforcement of Domestic Judgments), the deadline to file objections is generally 45 days from the imposition of the attachment to the debtor’s assets or the garnishment order to the debtor (Article 934, paragraph 1(a) of the GCCP). In cases of direct enforcement, the deadline is generally 30 days from the last enforcement act (eg, the service of the writ of execution to the debtor) (Article 934, paragraph 1(b) of the GCCP). The court must in theory issue its decision on the objections within 60 days following the hearing. However, no procedural defect or nullity arises if the decision is delayed beyond this point.
Tiered approach
The GCCP mandates a tiered approach to addressing defects or nullities in enforcement acts. Each act of enforcement is autonomous and defects must be challenged through separate oppositions within specific timeframes. Failure to challenge an act in a timely manner results in curing the defect, preventing future claims. The annulment of one act does not directly affect subsequent acts, necessitating cumulative challenges for effective protection.
Suspension of Enforcement Proceedings (Article 938 of the GCCP)
Following lodging and proper service of objections and up until the hearing (but not on the day of the hearing), debtors may seek the suspension of the enforcement proceedings pending against them until the issuance of a final judgment on the objections.
Suspension applications are conditioned on the cumulative satisfaction of whether the objections are likely to be successful and whether the enforcement would cause irreparable harm to the debtor. Article 938 of the GCCP was the subject of revisions brought about by Law 4842/2024.
Challenging the Objections Decisions
Following the enactment of Law 4842/2021, first-instance court decisions on objections can be challenged before all higher courts (including the Supreme Court), using all legal remedies without limitation – except for applications to set aside default judgments. The current regime is the same that existed prior to 2015.
Please refer to 2.1 Types of Domestic Judgments. As a general rule, only performance judgments are enforceable (and only those that are definitive). Final judgments that have been declared provisionally enforceable by the court can also be enforced. Formative and declaratory judgments cannot be enforced.
No such central register exists. Case files are kept with the court and only the parties to the proceedings are allowed access. In recent years, in several cases it is possible for parties to obtain access digitally by making a relevant application through a dedicated platform. Case information (but not case documents) is also available online to the general public, as long as one has access to the relevant unique number identifiers of each case. This access is currently limited to the country’s main courthouses.
Enforcing foreign judgments in Greece is a complex process entailing a large number of legal issues. The complexity lies in the fact legal practitioners have to navigate a large set of potentially applicable provisions stemming from the GCCP, the bilateral agreements concluded between Greece and third countries (which have more than doubled in number since 1980), the multilateral conventions to which Greece is party (mainly deriving from the Hague International Conference on Private International Law), and – most importantly – a double–digit number of EU Regulations. What is more, these instruments are regularly amended, thereby introducing issues of transitional nature.
The aforementioned international instruments take precedence over the GCCP provisions as per the clear letter of both the GCCP (Article 905) and the Greek Constitution (Article 28). EU regulations take precedence over all other legislative frameworks, followed by international treaties (bilateral and multilateral), and lastly the domestic framework of the GCCP.
EU Law
The main EU Regulations that regulate enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters within the EU are:
Enforcement of foreign judgments and other titles under these instruments does not require a declaration of enforceability (“exequatur”).
Multilateral Treaties
Greece has acceded to a series of multilateral international conventions, which have either exclusively focused on – or included within them – the issues of recognition and enforcement.
The Two Lugano Conventions
The first category includes the two Lugano Conventions on jurisdiction, recognition, and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.
Hague Conference on Private International Law
This second category includes the following instruments:
United Nations
This third category includes the following conventions and model laws:
Bilateral Agreements
To date, Greece has ratified the following bilateral judicial assistance agreements in civil matters, which are currently in force:
These agreements can be classified as follows:
Domestic Law
The key provisions are those of Articles 323, 780, 903, 905 and 906 of the GCCP. With the exception of Article 905, the other provisions have remained unchanged since 1967. The amendment of Article 905 of the GCCP pertains only to the first paragraph, adding what was essentially already applied by the country’s courts before the amendment – ie, that the GCCP applies only when Greece is not bound by an EU regulation. Otherwise, domestic provisions are subordinated to bilateral and multilateral conventions. However, these conventions do not cover procedural issues, for which the rules of the GCCP are applied (see 3.4 Process of Enforcing Judgments).
Legal Issues Arising in Enforcing Foreign Judgments
Domestic law
Missing documentation is one issue relating to the enforcement of foreign judgments in Greece. This includes:
Inconsistency and contradiction can also cause legal issues to arise. Examples include:
Bilateral agreements
Parallel application can impact the enforcement of foreign judgments in Greece, given that bilateral agreements:
Interest in non-EU bilateral agreements also has an effect, as follows.
The main issues in the application of bilateral agreements concern:
Additional observations on issues relating to bilateral agreements in the enforcement of foreign judgments in Greece are as follows.
Multilateral agreements
In terms of multilateral agreements, the following issues arise in relation to the enforcement of foreign judgments in Greece.
EU Regulations 1215/2012 and 44/2001
Issues arise from confusion in choosing the applicable regulation when it comes to:
As a general rule, every foreign judgment automatically develops its res judicata effect in Greece without any further procedure, provided that the conditions for recognition set out in Article 323, numbers 1–5 of the GCCP are met. As regards intra-EU judgments in particular, the CJEU has held in Hoffmann (C-145/86) and Apostolides (C-420/07) that intra-EU judgments produce – in principle – the same legal effects in the state of recognition (in this case, Greece) as they do in their EU-member states of issuance.
With the exception of EU judgments and judgments falling under the scope of the international treaties outlined in 3.1 Legal Issues Concerning Enforcement of Foreign Judgments, the automatic extension of the effects of foreign judgments in Greece does not include the effect of enforceability. Thus, unlike domestic titles, foreign judgments (and foreign enforceable titles more broadly) do not immediately become enforceable within Greek territory. They must receive an official and formal endorsement of enforceability from the domestic courts. A creditor intending to enforce a foreign title in Greece must request a declaration of its enforceability from a Greek court.
Procedure for Declaration of Enforceability
The Greek court adjudicates the relevant application under the rules of voluntary (ie, non-contentious) jurisdiction (Article 905, paragraph 1(2) of the GCCP). The court examines whether the conditions for enforceability are met, especially ensuring that the title does not contravene public policy, which protects against violations of constitutionally guaranteed individual rights.
The process for declaring enforceability is the same for all enforceable titles. However, the conditions for declaring foreign enforceable titles differ from those for foreign judicial decisions. Foreign titles are declared enforceable in Greece if they are enforceable according to the law of the place of issuance and do not contravene good morals or public order (Article 905, paragraph 2 of the GCCP). Foreign judicial decisions must also meet the conditions for recognition of foreign judicial decisions (Article 323, numbers 2–5 of the GCCP).
Necessity of Declaration
Without the declaration of enforceability, there are no grounds for initiating compulsory execution. The court’s decision does not reassess the substantive claim of the foreign judgment, nor does it simply recognise the presence of enforceability conditions. Instead, it grants the enforceable effect to the foreign title.
Legal Implications
From the issuance of this decision, the foreign title is fully equated with and executed like a domestic title. This decision creates a new legal status, making it a constitutive act rather than a mere recognition of enforceability. Consequently, the term used is not “recognition of enforceability” but “declaration of enforceability” of the foreign judgement. The declared enforceable foreign judgment in Greece does not lose its enforceability even if it is subsequently annulled in the country of issuance.
Exequatur Process for Enforcing Foreign Judgments in Greece
The process of granting enforceability (internationally known as “exequatur”), which facilitates access to Greek enforcement authorities, is mandatory both for the rules of our autonomous national law (Article 905 and Article 906 of the GCCP) and for the provisions of international conventions signed with foreign countries and ratified by Greece. Among these, the Lugano Convention plays a significant role.
International Conventions, EU Law, and Exequatur
The exequatur process is necessary for foreign judgments under both national and international law. However, it does not apply to the legal systems of the EU, which aim to create a unified jurisdictional area and thus do not require declaration of enforceability, which is automatic.
CJEU Decisions
The exequatur process is not required for decisions of the CJEU, which are executed according to the provisions of the Greek Code of Civil Procedure, as per domestic judgments (Article 280 and Article 299 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU)). The enforceable form is affixed by the competent service of the Ministry of Justice after verifying the authenticity of the title only, without investigating other conditions – particularly whether fundamental constitutional rights of the domestic legal order were violated.
ECHR Decisions
The prevailing opinion is that judgments of the ECHR can be executed analogously using the exequatur process for foreign judgments (Article 905 in conjunction with Article 323 of the GCCP). Some support the view that ECHR judgments do not need to be declared enforceable, as they are immediately valid and enforceable in Greece as per domestic court decisions.
Only foreign performance judgments may be subject to enforcement (ie, foreign titles that compel the debtor to provide, act, refrain from, or tolerate an action), as is the case for domestic judgments (see 2.6 Unenforceable Domestic Judgments and 1. Identifying Assets in the Jurisdiction).
Foreign performance judgments that do not fall under the scope of an EU Regulation or the provisions of an international treaty require two things to be enforced:
The conditions for enforceability of foreign titles (and foreign decisions) must be met cumulatively. The burden of invocation and the objective burden of proof lies with the party seeking the declaration of enforceability.
General Conditions for Enforceability of Foreign Titles in Greece
Enforceability in the state of origin
The primary condition for declaring a foreign title enforceable in Greece is that it must be enforceable according to the law of the place of issuance (Article 905, paragraph 2 of the GCCP). The foreign title must be enforceable under the law of the country of issuance at the time the declaration of enforceability is sought.
If the enforceable title is a foreign judicial decision, its procedural maturity is irrelevant. As long as it is considered enforceable under the law of its issuance, the Greek court does not need to investigate if it is final or irrevocable.
Not contravening public policy
A fundamental condition for declaring the enforceability of any foreign enforceable title is that it does not contravene domestic public order and the associated concept of good morals. Public order is understood as the totality of fundamental rules governing the state’s social, economic, legal, moral, and other aspects of life (Article 33 of the Greek Civil Code).
The judge tasked with declaring the enforceability of a foreign title will examine, even ex officio, whether the execution of the foreign title in the specific case disrupts the foundations, basic principles, and perceptions governing the social, moral, cultural, and other aspects of life in Greece. The mere fact that Greek law does not recognise a particular institution or regulation applied by the foreign decision, or that Greek law provides an opposite regulation to that on which the foreign decision was based, does not constitute a contradiction to domestic public order.
Anti-suit injunctions are not enforceable in Greece for being contrary to Greek (procedural) public policy.
Additional Conditions Applying Solely to Foreign Judgments
Per Article 905, paragraph 3 in conjunction with Article 323 numbers 2–5 of the GCCP), the following additional conditions apply solely to foreign judgments (ie, not all foreign titles).
EU judgments falling under the scope of the EU Regulations mentioned in 3.1 Legal Issues Concerning Enforcement of Foreign Judgments and foreign judgments falling under the scope of international treaties will be refused enforcement under the specific conditions stipulated in these instruments, which take precedence over the provisions of the GCCP.
In the case of intra-EU judgments, as already mentioned, these are automatically enforceable (iE, they do not need to be declared enforceable by a Greek court). As such, the process of enforcing them will be exactly the same as for domestic judgments (for relevant analysis, please refer to 2.2Enforcement of Domestic Judgments).
Non-EU foreign judgments will first need to be declared enforceable in accordance with the following process (Article 905, paragraph 1 of the GCCP).
Please refer to 2.3 Costs and Time Taken to Enforce Domestic Judgments. There is no real deviation from what applies in domestic judgments, save that one should also account for the additional time and cost needed for the declaration of enforceability of the foreign judgment (if so required).
Please refer to our response to 2.5 Challenging Enforcement of Domestic Judgments. There is no real deviation from what applies in domestic judgments.
Arbitral awards are decisions issued by private individuals resolving a private law dispute. The main legal issues relating to enforcing arbitral awards in Greece pertain to the nature of the arbitral award as domestic or foreign.
Domestic Awards
Domestic awards are those issued in Greece – ie, in all cases where the seat of the arbitration is in Greece. Domestic awards are further divided into national and international awards, depending on the existence of an element of internationality. Domestic-national awards are governed by Articles 867–903 of the GCCP, whereas domestic-international awards are governed by Greece’s law on international commercial arbitration (Law 5016/2023), transposing the 2006 amendments to the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (1985), together with some novel elements.
Domestic awards are enforceable titles pursuant to Article 904, paragraph 2(b) of the GCCP and are enforced in virtually the same manner as domestic judgments and foreign judgments/titles, after they have been declared enforceable (if required) (see our responses to 2.2 Enforcement of Domestic Judgments, 3.2 Variations in Approach to Enforcement of Foreign Judgments, and 3.4 Process of Enforcing Foreign Judgments).
Foreign Awards
Any award issued outside Greece is considered foreign. Greek courts lack international jurisdiction to rule (even incidentally) on the validity and substantive effect of a foreign arbitral award. They are only entitled to refuse to declare it enforceable in Greece if the legal conditions are not met. Foreign arbitral awards produce res judicata effect automatically upon issuance, without the need for the observance of any formalities.
Enforceability of Foreign Awards
Enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in Greece is traditionally primarily governed by the New York Convention. In cases where the latter did not apply on account of the mutuality/reciprocity and commerciality reservations of Greece, foreign arbitral awards in Greece were – until recently – declared enforceable only upon the cumulative satisfaction of certain conditions prescribed by Article 906, Article 905(1) and Article 903 of the GCCP, going above and beyond the international enforcement standards of the New York Convention.
Law 5016/2023 changed this, by stating in Article 45 that foreign arbitral awards are enforced in accordance with the provisions of the New York Convention, even in cases where the New York Convention would not be applicable. Law 5016/2023 sets out a uniform enforcement standard for every foreign arbitral award, leaving virtually no room for the applications of the aforementioned GCCP provisions. The latter remain relevant with regard to the relevant procedure that will be applied.
Please refer to 4.1 Legal Issues Concerning Enforcement of Arbitral Awards. Domestic awards are enforced in virtually the same manner as domestic court judgments. All other foreign awards are enforced under the provisions of the New York Convention. Thereafter (ie, following the declaration of enforceability), enforcement takes place in accordance with local GCCP rules in the same manner as for domestic judgments (see 2.2 Enforcement of Domestic Judgments).
Please refer to 2.1 Types of Domestic Judgments and 3.3 Categories of Foreign Judgments Not Enforced for foreign judgments and domestic court judgments, respectively. Arbitral awards upholding performance claims (eg, awarding damages) are generally enforceable. Awards ordering interim relief measures are also enforceable, subject to first being declared enforceable by the competent court. Parts of awards concerning the fees of the tribunal and the tribunal secretary are also not enforceable.
As already mentioned in 4.1 Legal Issues Concerning Enforcement of Arbitral Awards, domestic awards are automatically enforceable (ie, they do not first need to be declared enforceable). As such, what has been mentioned in 3.2 Variations in Approach to Enforcement of Foreign Judgments regarding enforcement of foreign judgments and in 2.2 Enforcement of Domestic Judgments regarding enforcement of domestic judgments will also apply here, with virtually no deviations.
Before being allowed to commence enforcement in this way, a foreign award-creditor will first need to declare it enforceable in Greece. The procedure for declaring enforceability continues to be regulated by the provisions of Article 905, paragraph 1 and Article 906 of the GCCP and Article 3 of the New York Convention and remains in effect under the New York Convention (which, as already mentioned in 4.1 Legal Issues Concerning Enforcement of Arbitral Awards, applies in all cases of foreign awards since the entering into force of Law 5016/2023).
Required Documentation
The applicant must provide the original or an authenticated copy of both the arbitral award and the arbitration agreement, accompanied by a certified translation into Greek by an “official translator” (Article 4 of the New York Convention).
As regards the need to furnish the original/authenticated copy of the arbitration agreement, Article 45 paragraph 3 of Law 5016/2023 does not require this. Therefore, some commentators insist that Article 45(3) will prevail over Article 4 of the New York Convention, pursuant to the more-favourable-right provision of the New York Convention (Article VII).
These documents also constitute elements of the application. Their absence is checked ex officio by the court, leading to dismissal of the application if not present.
Application Process
Per a recent Supreme Court decision (No 805/2021), the application for declaring a foreign arbitral award enforceable under the New York Convention need not be directed against the person against whom enforcement is sought. This decision goes contrary to the position up to that point held in Greek legal doctrine and lower court jurisprudence. This decision has drastic effects vis-à-vis challenging the enforcement of a foreign arbitral award (see 4.6 Challenging Enforcement of Arbitral Awards).
Please refer to 2.3 Costs and Time Taken to Enforce Domestic Judgments and 3.5 Costs and Time Taken to Enforce Foreign Judgments.There is no real deviation from what applies in domestic/foreign judgments, save that one should also account for the additional time and cost needed for the declaration of enforceability of the foreign award (if so required).
The options available for challenging the enforcement of arbitral awards depend on the nature of the arbitral award. What follows is an analysis of the tools for resisting enforcement of arbitral awards, without reference to the tools for the setting aside arbitral awards.
Domestic-National Awards
The process for challenging domestic-national awards (ie, arbitral awards rendered within the context of domestic arbitration proceedings regulated by the GCCP) is exactly the same as the one outlined in 2.5 Challenging Enforcement of Domestic Judgments for the case of domestic court judgments – ie, by filing the “objections” remedy of Article 933 of the GCCP.
The pendency of set-aside applications to quash the award (Article 897 of the GCCP) or applications seeking the declaration of the arbitral award as non-existent (Article 901 of the GCCP) does not generally suspend or otherwise affect the enforcement proceedings (Article 899, paragraph 3 and Article 901, paragraph 3 of the GCCP).
Domestic-International Awards
The process for challenging domestic-international awards (ie, arbitral awards rendered within the context of international arbitration proceedings regulated by Law 5016/2023) also follows the above-mentioned process per the GCCP with one notable exception. Article 43, paragraph 7 of Law 5016/2023 provides that, in cases where the parties have waived their right to set aside the award, the award-debtor maintains the right to invoke the grounds to set aside the arbitral award in the ensuing enforcement proceedings. These grounds are contained in Article 43, paragraph 2 and generally mirror the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (1985), with some exceptions.
Foreign Awards
As discussed in 4.1 Legal Issues Concerning Enforcement of Arbitral Awards, in all cases, the enforcement of foreign awards is governed by the provisions of the New York Convention. The New York Convention provides for seven non-enforcement grounds – the first five of which (Article V, paragraph 1 (a)–(e)) need to be invoked by the award-debtor, while the other two (Article V, paragraph 2) may also be considered ex officio by the enforcing court. These are:
These grounds must be brought by the award-debtor either:
280 Kifissias Ave
152 32 Halandri
Athens
Greece
+30 210 6967 000
info@zeya.com www.zeya.comEnforcement of Judgments and Arbitral Awards in Recent Greek Judicial Decisions and Legislative Reforms
Greece has witnessed significant judicial and legislative activity concerning the enforcement and recognition of arbitral awards and judgments. This article explores key judicial decisions and the recent enactment of Law 5016/2023, which reshapes the landscape of international commercial arbitration in Greece. The focus will be on the enforcement of arbitral awards, owing to the concentration of recent developments in these areas. It will also discuss the 2019 Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters, which entered into force in Greece in September 2023.
Supreme Court judgment No 805/2021 ‒ ex parte proceedings in arbitration
The Supreme Court of Greece, in its judgment No 805/2021, addressed critical procedural questions regarding ex parte applications for the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards. The court clarified two pivotal points (and, in this way, went against the prevailing position in legal doctrine): whether the application to declare an award enforceable must be directed to the award debtor and whether the award debtor is rendered a formal litigant party in such proceedings. The court answered negatively to both, establishing that these applications do not require the procedural presence or notification of the award debtor, thus confirming the non-contentious nature of these proceedings.
Ex parte proceedings ‒ definition and context
Ex parte proceedings are those conducted without the presence of all parties involved, typically because the nature of the proceedings requires immediate action or because one party is unresponsive or because of the non-contentious nature of the proceedings in question, as was the case here. In the context of arbitration, ex parte applications are often made to enforce arbitral awards quickly and efficiently.
Supreme Court’s rationale
The Supreme Court’s decision in judgment No 805/2021 clarified the following two critical points regarding the procedural aspects of enforcing arbitral awards.
These clarifications emphasise that the recognition of enforceability is inherently non-contentious and the absence of the award debtor does not infringe on any procedural requirements. The award debtor can bring a third-party challenge against the decision declaring the award enforceable coupled with a motion to suspend enforceability. In result, however, the award creditor has the upper hand and initiative to act.
Implications for arbitration practice
This decision favours award creditors by streamlining the enforcement process. Key implications include the following.
Agrinio court decision on cryptocurrency payments ‒ public policy considerations
The single-member first instance court of Agrinio, in its decision No 193/2018, tackled the contentious issue of whether an arbitral award that mandates payment in cryptocurrency aligns with Greek public policy. Although the decision was made in 2018, it made headlines in 2022 when it was published (and was also ratified by the appellate court), drawing significant attention due to the global rise of cryptocurrencies and their increasing use in commercial transactions.
In this case, the petitioner sought the recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitral award that required payment in Bitcoin. The court had to consider whether such an award could be enforced under Greek law, especially in light of public policy concerns.
Legal framework
The recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in Greece is governed by the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards 1958 (the “New York Convention”) and the Greek Code of Civil Procedure. Under these frameworks, a foreign arbitral award may be refused recognition if it is contrary to Greek (international) public policy.
Public policy and cryptocurrency
Public policy is a broad and often nebulous concept that encompasses the fundamental principles and values of a legal system. In the context of cryptocurrency, several public policy concerns arise, including the following.
Court’s decision
The Agrinio court refused to recognise and enforce the arbitral award on the grounds that requiring payment in Bitcoin was contrary to Greek public policy. The court noted the following.
Implications for arbitration and commercial transactions
This decision has significant implications for both arbitration and commercial practice in Greece. Key takeaways include the following.
Greece’s Supreme Administrative Court judgment No 251/2022 ‒ broader implications
Greece’s Supreme Administrative Court (ie, Greece’s Conseil d’État), in its judgment No 251/2022, addressed the issue of the enforceability of arbitration agreements in the context of administrative law. This decision has significant implications for the enforceability of foreign arbitral awards, especially within the framework of EU law and the principles established by the CJEU’s decision in Achmea BV v Slovak Republic (Case C-284/16) (“Achmea”).
The case involved a concession agreement that had been ratified by law and the issue was whether disputes arising from the agreement could be submitted to arbitration. The court had to consider the interplay between legislative acts and arbitration agreements.
Alignment with Achmea
The court’s decision in this case can be seen in the broader context of the CJEU’s decision in Achmea. In Achmea, the CJEU held that arbitration clauses in bilateral investment treaties (BITs) between EU member states are incompatible with EU law because they undermine the autonomy of the EU legal order.
Key points from the judgment
The key takeaways from the Conseil d’État judgment No 251/2022 are as follows.
Critical perspective
The court’s reasoning has been criticised for the following reasons.
Implications for arbitration practice
In light of this decision, it might be difficult to negotiate arbitration clauses with the Legal Council of State (ie, the lawyers of the Greek State) who are tasked with negotiating public concession contracts. They might refuse to agree on arbitration clauses that extend to EU law matters for fear of future non-enforcement of any ensuing arbitral award. This reluctance stems from the potential for such clauses to be rendered unenforceable, as demonstrated by the Conseil d’État’s unfortunate alignment with the Achmea decision.
Law 5016/2023 ‒ strengthening arbitration framework
Article 45 of Law 5016/2023 explicitly mandates the application of the New York Convention in Greece. This provision underscores Greece’s commitment to the international arbitration framework established by the New York Convention, ensuring the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards irrespective of whether the traditional preconditions, such as mutuality, are met.
Article 45 of Law 5016/2023’s key provisions are as follows.
The implications for arbitration practice are as follows.
The 2019 Hague Convention ‒ expanding the scope of enforcement
The 2019 Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters (the “2019 Hague Convention”), which entered into force in Greece in September 2023, represents a significant milestone in the international enforcement landscape. This convention aims to streamline and enhance the process for recognising and enforcing foreign judgments, by creating a common legal framework irrespective of whether a choice of court agreement between parties to an international dispute is in place.
Key provisions of the Hague Convention
The key provisions of the 2019 Hague Convention are as follows.
Implications for Greek practice
The implications of the 2019 Hague Convention for Greek enforcement practice are as follows.
Practical guidance for practitioners
Practitioners are well advised to take the following guidance into consideration in respect of the 2019 Hague Convention.
Conclusion
The recent judicial decisions and the enactment of Law 5016/2023, alongside the entry into force of the 2019 Hague Convention, represent significant developments in the Greek arbitration and enforcement landscape. Law 5016/2023 represents a significant advancement in the Greek arbitration framework, while the 2019 Hague Convention further broadens the scope of enforceable foreign decisions, solidifying Greece’s commitment to international legal standards.
The Supreme Court’s judgment No 805/2021 and the Agrinio court’s decision on cryptocurrency payments underscore the procedural nuances and public policy in the enforcement of arbitral awards. The decision by Greece’s Conseil d’État to apply the principles of Achmea to a commercial arbitration clause in a concession agreement has significant implications for the arbitration landscape in Greece and the EU. This approach risks undermining the effectiveness of commercial arbitration and could discourage foreign investment. It is crucial for practitioners to carefully navigate these developments and advocate for a more nuanced application of EU law principles in arbitration-related disputes.
The unconditional application of the New York Convention set out in Article 45(1) of the new arbitration law ensures the broad enforceability of foreign arbitral awards, removing traditional preconditions and broadening the scope of enforcement. Together, these provisions strengthen Greece’s position as a reliable and attractive jurisdiction for international arbitration. Practitioners should leverage the flexibility and robustness provided by these articles to draft and enforce arbitration agreements effectively.
As Greece continues to refine its arbitration laws and practices, staying informed about these trends and developments will be crucial for effectively managing arbitration proceedings and ensuring the enforceability of arbitral awards and foreign judgments. For clients and practitioners involved in arbitration and litigation in Greece, these changes provide a robust legal framework that supports the efficient and fair resolution of disputes.
280 Kifissias Ave
152 32 Halandri
Athens
Greece
+30 210 6967 000
info@zeya.com zeya.com