Litigation 2022

Last Updated December 02, 2021


Law and Practice


Moussas & Partners is a multidisciplinary legal practice based in Athens, Greece. The firm numbers thirteen attorneys and four trainees. It has a breadth of experience in complex transactions and dispute resolution and a distinguished record in acting for clients from a variety of industries and countries, before local courts as well as in international and local arbitration fora. Clients include the VW Group, Kraft Heinz, Hugo Boss, Nielsen, Siemens and Sony. Notably, the firm has been acting for the various companies of one of Greece’s leading industrial groups, Mytilineos SA. Furthermore, the firm has defended manufacturers, distributors and dealers of products in cases related to alleged design or manufacturing defects. Highlights of the firm’s track record include the defence of VW Group in diesel emissions litigation cases securing favourable and precedent-setting outcomes in a matter with worldwide repercussions, and in arbitration, the successful representation of Mytilineos Holdings in a BIT dispute against Serbia.

Greece is a civil law jurisdiction. Laws are promulgated by the legislature and, under limited circumstances, by the executive. They are in the form of Statutes, Codes, Acts, Presidential Decrees or other Statutes and constitute the sources of statutory law (jus positivus). Additional sources are “the generally accepted rules of international law”, international treaties ratified by law and European Union Law (primary and secondary) superseding national laws. Custom is of limited use.

Greek courts do not have law-making powers and are not bound by judicial precedents. However, courts, in general, adhere to established case law and especially to the judgments of the Supreme Civil and Criminal Court (Areios Pagos) as well as those of the Supreme Administrative Court (Council of the State), which dominate the decision-making processes of lower courts.

Civil courts adopt an adversarial model, whereas criminal courts follow an inquisitorial one. Administrative courts adopt a mixture of the two.

The 2015 reform of the Greek Code of Civil Procedure (GCCP) has shifted the court's emphasis towards written submissions in the majority of proceedings, to expedite procedures in first and second instance courts. The most recent reform is the amendment of certain provisions of the GCCP with Law 4842/2021. In the Supreme Court, however, cases are pleaded orally.

The legal process in criminal courts is principally oral; in administrative courts the rule is that submissions are always written and may also be presented orally, particularly in the Supreme Court.

Greece has a tripartite judicial structure comprised of civil, criminal and administrative courts. These operate at a national level with different territorial jurisdictions; no federal courts exist in Greece.

Territorial competence is established on the basis of the location of the residence of the defendant, where the disputed legal act was contracted, the location of the disputed immovable property, etc.

Court Hierarchy

The GCCP provides for three types of civil courts of first instance.

  • The Small Claims Courts having jurisdiction over monetary disputes not exceeding the amount of EUR20,000, disputes arising out of lease agreements where the monthly rent does not exceed EUR600 and disputes between joined property owners up to EUR20,000.
  • The Single-Member Courts of First Instance having jurisdiction over disputes whose value range is between EUR20,000 and EUR250,000 and (exceptionally) over certain disputes even exceeding the EUR250,000 threshold depending on their nature (indicatively, labour and family law disputes), these courts also serve as appellate courts for judgments issued by Small Claims Courts.
  • The Multi-Member Courts of First Instance which are comprised by three judges, having jurisdiction over disputes for which the Small Claims Courts or the Single-Member Courts of First Instance are not competent (ie, if the value of the dispute exceeds EUR250,000).

In the second instance, the Single-Member Courts of Appeals (each consisting of one appellate judge) review decisions of the Single-Member Courts of First Instance. The Three-Member Courts of Appeals (each consisting of three appellate judges) review decisions of the Multi-Member Courts of First Instance.

The Supreme Court (Areios Pagos - Cour de Cassation) is the supreme court of the civil and criminal arm of the judiciary. It reviews appellate court decisions only on the basis of questions of law.

Civil, Administrative and Criminal Jurisdiction

Although no specialised civil courts exist, certain categories of general areas of law (eg, labour, commercial, intellectual property and matrimonial disputes) are assigned to specific civil court dockets. The possibility of assigning matters regulated by a specific legal framework (eg, banking, finance, capital markets, energy or telecommunications disputes) is under consideration. All shipping cases are tried by the special Maritime Courts in Piraeus, the latter being a major international maritime hub.

Administrative courts are subdivided into Administrative Courts of First Instance, Administrative Courts of Appeal and the Council of the State (Conseil d’ Etat), which is the highest court of the administrative arm of justice. If the Areios Pagos and the Council of State reach divergent rulings on constitutional issues, the Special Supreme Court, an ad hoc panel of justices, selected by both the Areios Pagos and the Council of State, resolves the matter.

Criminal courts include One-Member Courts of Misdemeanours, Three-Member Courts of Misdemeanours, Mixed Jury Courts, One-Member Courts of Appeal, Three-Member Courts of Appeal, Mixed Jury Courts of Appeal, Five-Member Courts of Appeal and the Supreme Court (Areios Pagos). Furthermore, there are juvenile courts and special criminal courts which try cases involving offences by military personnel serving in the army, navy or air force (courts martial, naval courts, air force courts).

Judicial proceedings are open to the public according to the Constitution, unless an open hearing might insult bonos mores or public policy.

In criminal investigation proceedings, access is granted only to the persons involved and, if to third parties, only where they have justified a lawful interest. 

With respect to court filings, the General Data Protection Regulation and the implementing Law 4624/2019 constitute the legal framework providing the specific legal bases and conditions for personal data processing (eg, data subject’s consent and the protection of a legitimate interest). While court filings and issued decisions were considered, in the past, to be of a public nature, data protection legislation and relevant concerns have, today, severely restricted access to any third-party court documents.

In order for a lawyer to be able to appear before the Greek courts, they should be registered with any Greek Bar Association. Escalation of the right to appear before first or second instance courts or the Supreme Court depends on the level of seniority of the lawyer. 

An EU citizen may appear before Greek courts if they are a qualified lawyer in an EU member state, registered at any Greek Bar Association via the submission of evidence of a three-year actual and regular Greek legal practice (Presidential Decree 152/2000).

The notion of litigation funding by a third party is not conceived of, or structured by, any specific Greek legislation, though certain insurance companies offer legal-expenses protection covering the costs of litigation. On the other hand, there are no rules for restrictions on funders. A litigation funding arrangement could currently take the form of a loan arrangement combined with assignment of future proceeds from litigation.

In the absence of a legal framework regulating third-party litigation funding, there is no restriction as to the type of lawsuit that could be funded.

Third-party litigation funding could be made available to both the plaintiff and defendant

There is no minimum and maximum amount a third-party funder will fund.

Costs that third-party funders will consider could include all fees and expenses (eg, costs for legal representation, court fees and expert fees).

The Lawyers’ Code (ie, the rules of professional conduct and ethics for lawyers) provides that attorneys may, by specific written agreement, take cases on a contingency basis. A contingency fee may not exceed 20% of the value of the case. If a client is represented by more than one lawyer in a single case, the aggregate contingency fees payable to all attorneys may not exceed 30% of the value of the case.

No time limits apply to obtaining third-party funding.

Pre-trial Mediation

Law 4640/2019, which regulates mediation procedures in national and cross-border civil and commercial matters, introduced an obligation whereby, prior to the filing of any legal action, an attorney must inform their client of the possibility to resort to mediation for the resolution of the dispute (effective as of 30 November 2019). The acknowledgment of this notification must be signed by the client and the lawyer and then filed before the competent court, together with the writ initiating proceedings or the pleadings (and in any case before the hearing of the case), otherwise the hearing of the action shall be considered as inadmissible. In three recently issued judgments of the Small Claims Court of Athens – No 1044/2020, No 1034/2020 and No 976/2020 – the provisions on the inadmissibility of the court hearing in case of non-submission of the relevant notification, were deemed unconstitutional. The Multi-Member Court of First Instance of Thessaloniki in two recent judgments – No 1045/2021 and No 1878/2021 – declared the inadmissibility of the respective hearings as the aforementioned notification document had a later date than the lawsuit filing date.

Furthermore, a mandatory preliminary mediation session is provided, prior to their referral to the competent court, for:

  • certain family law disputes (for lawsuits filed after 15 January 2020);
  • Ordinary Proceedings disputes pending before the Single-Member Court of First Instance for disputes exceeding EUR30,000 or before the Multi-Member Court of First Instance (for lawsuits filed after 1 July 2020), as per Article 74 (14) of Law 4690/2020; and
  • all disputes arising from agreements including an explicit mediation clause.

The written notification of the mediator to the parties to hold the initial mediation session suspends the statutory limitation (and relating deadlines) of the claim. In cases of non-compliance with the above mandatory initial mediation session, the hearing of the respective claims shall be rejected as inadmissible by the competent courts.

All disputes in which the Greek state or any public entity/organisation is one of the parties, are excluded from the mandatory preliminary mediation session.

State Fee

Furthermore, Law 4640/2019 provides a significant cost to initially resorting to the courts, namely a state fee (dikastiko ensimo) for all disputes falling under the jurisdiction of Multi-Member Courts of First Instance with hearing dates from 1 January 2020 onwards. This fee could previously be avoided if a lawsuit requested a declaratory judgment only, an option which has now been abolished.

However, the above law has received criticism from the legal community. First instance courts have already ruled on the lack of constitutionality of this provision (Athens Multi-Member Court of First Instance 2142/2020, Thessaloniki Multi-Member Court of First Instance 5352/2020, Patras Multi-Member Court of First Instance 94/2020, Lamia Multi-Member Court of First Instance 46/2020, Lasithi Multi-Member Court of First Instance 24/2020). On the other hand, Courts in judgments of the Athens Multi-Member Court of First Instance 1948/2020 and the Lamia Multi-Member Court of First Instance 56/2020 have adopted the opposite approach ruling in favour of the compatibility of Article 42 of Law 4640/2019 with the Constitution.

The Three Membered Thessaloniki Court of Appeal in its recent judgment No 1425/2021, held that it is permissible to file the state fee for the first time before a second instance court.

Other Pre-action Requirements

In principal, there are no pre-action requirements (pre-action protocols, letters of claim or pre-action notices) that parties need to meet prior to the commencement of proceedings. It is common for the parties to serve extrajudicial letters prior to the initiation of the trial assessing the possibility of prior resolution or settlement of the dispute.

In special proceedings, however, (indicatively, the order for the delivery of a leased property) service of an extra-judicial letter is required as a pre-trial step. See 7.1 Trial Proceedings for the two basic procedures.

The Greek Civil Code provides for a 20-year general statute of limitation from the occurrence of the unlawful act. However, shorter periods are provided for particular types of disputes. Indicatively, a five-year period is provided for commercial (or similar) business claims between professionals, starting at the end of the year in which the cause of action accrued. A similar five-year period applies to tort claims, starting from the date of the offence (or possibly at any later time when the injured party acquired knowledge of the incurred damage and the person liable for compensation).

The statute of limitation is interrupted (and a new one starts) each time there is a procedural action (eg, filing and service of a lawsuit or hearing of a case).

Consumers’ claims against the producer of a defective product are time-barred three years after the injured party has been informed, or should have been informed, about the loss, the defect and the identity of the producer. 

Furthermore, the general limitation period within which a buyer, whether a consumer or not, must exercise their rights from a contract for the sale of goods is two years for movable goods and five years for immovable goods.

Certain considerations in relation to the impact of pandemic-related legislation on statute of limitations are discussed in 14.2 Impact of COVID-19.

Jurisdiction has several meanings under Greek law.

In one sense, jurisdiction denotes the general power of Greek courts to adjudicate cases as opposed to the courts of another country.

The concept of jurisdiction is further distinguished into:

  • subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning the power of a certain category of courts (eg, the Small Claims Court or the Single-Member Court of First Instance) to adjudicate over a certain class of cases; and
  • territorial jurisdiction of a specific court, meaning the power of that court to adjudicate a particular claim.

A Greek court may adjudicate a case only when it has both subject-matter and territorial jurisdiction.

As a general rule, territorial jurisdiction over civil cases is determined by the domicile of the defendant (regardless of the defendant’s nationality). Depending on the nature of the dispute, jurisdiction may be determined by other factors such as, the place of the tortuous act, the location of real property, the nature of a claim as auxiliary, etc. Some of these jurisdictional bases may be exclusive and force the plaintiff to bring the action in the court of a specific district (eg, actions regarding interests in real property must be adjudicated by the court sitting in the district where the real property is located). Other jurisdictional bases allow the plaintiff to choose between the court sitting in the district of the defendant’s domicile and courts of other districts (eg, the court of the district where tortuous conduct took place). In disputes arising out of, or in connection with, a contract involving a clause on jurisdiction, Greek courts will review the validity and effect of this clause on jurisdiction.

A lawsuit is initiated by filing a written pleading (complaint) with the court in which the action is brought (physically or electronically) and a copy thereof is served on the defendant. The initial complaint must state, in detail, the facts of the case in a manner that justifies an actionable claim by the plaintiff against the defendant. The complaint need not specify the underlying legal provision of the lawsuit because of the principle of jura novit curia (the judge knows the law). However, it is standard practice that the applicable legal provisions are also laid out in detail in a lawsuit. The complaint should specify with clarity and precision the relief sought, whether monetary or non-monetary. As a general rule, the initial pleading may not be amended once filed, except for minor clarifications or amendments which do not alter the factual basis of the dispute. After the filing of the lawsuit, the plaintiff may limit the scope of the relief sought or request the issuance of a declaratory judgment through an oral declaration during the hearing and/or through their written submissions, which are filed before the first hearing of the case.

Service in Greece is performed through a court bailiff, who is considered a public officer, instructed by the claimant to serve the lawsuit on the defendant. Service on a defendant residing or based abroad is conducted via a court bailiff serving the action on the Public Prosecutor with an official translation.

The date of service is when the claim has been physically delivered to the defendant or a suitable person (eg, a family member). In case of service abroad through the Public Prosecutor channel (in the capacity of transmitting authority), the basic rule is that service should be considered performed when actual delivery has happened. The legal community is divided as to the proper date of service (ie, the date of service to the Public Prosecutor (notional service) or the date of actual service to the defendant abroad (actual service)), when taking into consideration Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 providing for a certificate of completion upon completion of the formalities of the service. Recent amendments in local procedural law provide for the dismissal of a lawsuit if it is not timely served.

An action must be served to the defendant within 30 days from the date it was lodged and within 60 days if the defendant or any co-defendant(s) reside(s) abroad, or if they are persons of unknown residence. Unless timely served, an action is considered as never lodged.

If a defendant fails to respond to a lawsuit even though that lawsuit has been duly served, they shall be treated as absent from the trial and the court shall issue a default judgment against them.

Class action proceedings, collective claims and class actions are not generally provided in Greek law. 

Exceptionally, consumer protection law provides that consumer associations (constituted as unions) aiming at protecting the rights and interests of consumers are entitled to represent consumers in court and file representative collective actions. This may be effected by a consumer union of at least 500 members, duly registered in the Registry of Consumer Unions for at least one year, which can file an action of any kind for the protection of the general interests of consumers, provided that the illegal behaviour in question infringes the rights of, at least, 30 consumers, without distinguishing between members and non-members.

There are four types of class action that can be brought by consumer associations seeking the following. 

  • Prevention and cessation of any supplier behaving unlawfully.
  • Reparation for moral prejudice – the court, in order to award indemnification, takes into consideration the extent to which public order is harmed due to the unlawful conduct, the size of the defendant supplier’s business, its annual turnover, as well as the need for the general and specific prevention (of such behaviour).
  • Interim measures (injunctions) to secure consumers’ interests until an enforceable decision has been granted.
  • Recognition of the right of restitution of the damages consumers have suffered due to the supplier’s unlawful conduct.

There is no requirement to provide clients with a cost estimate at the outset of potential litigation, it is at the discretion of counsel. Ethical rules for lawyers, however, may be construed to include this obligation, especially when extraordinarily high costs may be anticipated.

A claimant is entitled to apply for a pre-action interim remedy prior to the court hearing if there is an urgent need to do so or an imminent danger to the object of the claim that could cause the claimant irreparable damage. The GCCP provides specifically for provisory and conservative measures (injunction measures in general) that constitute interim provisions of judicial protection, including:

  • the ordering of security for a monetary claim;
  • the registration of a pre-notation of mortgage;
  • the conservatory seizure of movables, immovables, rights in rem thereon, claims, and all assets of the debtor either in their hands or in the hands of third parties;
  • the placement in judicial escrow (custody) of movables, immovables, a group of objects or of a business;
  • the temporary adjudication of certain categories of vital claims;
  • the temporary adjudication of a case in any appropriate respect, as a protective measure; and
  • an immediate discovery process in a case where means or proof could be at risk of destruction or loss.

Regulation (EU) No 655/2014 provides for the option of issuing a European Account Preservation Order.

No early judgment applications are provided for.

The Greek legal system does not recognise dispositive motions (eg, motions to dismiss or for summary judgment) before a trial.

Third parties are entitled to join a lawsuit through the mechanisms of intervention, request for joinder and announcement of the dispute.

Intervention is available to a third party having a lawful interest in a case pending between others and may be exercised in two forms.

  • Main intervention – the third party intervenes at a first instance level requesting protection against all other parties.
  • Supportive intervention – the third party intervenes at any stage to support one of the parties.

Request for joinder of third parties may be exercised exclusively in three circumstances and by specific persons.

  • In the case of a common interest of many parties which should be adjudicated uniformly, the parties not included in the initial proceedings may be joined by the plaintiff or the defendant.
  • In the case of a defendant against whom a real estate lawsuit has been filed, the person on whose behalf the defendant exercises the relevant real estate right may be joined by the defendant.
  • In the case of a plaintiff, defendant or a third party exercising main intervention, they may join the person against whom, in case of loss, they shall have a compensation right.

The court may also order, ex officio, the request for joinder of a third party where it rules that the party should participate in the dispute. Following the request for joinder, the third party becomes a litigant party in the dispute regardless of its actual participation in the proceedings.

A party having a lawful interest may announce a pending dispute to a third party until the court of first instance issues a final judgment on the merits. The announcement of the dispute differs from the request for joinder on the basis of its scope (not limited), aim (only for information purposes without the third party being joined to the proceedings) and consequences. A third party, to whom the dispute is announced, is entitled to participate in the trial by filing an intervention. A third party, who does not participate in a trial although the dispute was announced to them before the hearing, is not entitled to file a third-party appeal against the judgment to be issued.

The deadlines for filing of the described third-party motions depend on the procedure/instance and on the filing date of the lawsuit or the hearing date.

A defendant may apply to the court for security for legal costs if there is an obvious risk that a claimant shall not honour an adjudication of costs. 

The party filing an application for provisional measures pays its costs in advance. The losing party is usually ordered by the court to pay the costs of the winning party. 

The hearing for a petition for provisional measures shall be usually set within one month or more (depending on the Court’s caseload) from the filing of the petition. A temporary order request may be granted within three days of the submission of the petition.

As a general rule, discovery, literally "proof" in Greek, (ie, the burden of proof of an allegation in a claim, counterclaim, objection or counter-objection) lies on the party invoking the respective factual allegation. Therefore, each respective party is obliged to produce both documents and witnesses (in court or through an affidavit) in order to prove its arguments. The initiative on which means of proof maybe produced lies mainly with the parties, though the court may order the production of specific pieces of evidence or an expert opinion to supplement the evidence. The number of witnesses may not exceed five in large cases, while in smaller claims the number is one or two. There is no mechanism to curb the discovery process and its attendant costs other than the fact that parties are obliged to produce all their evidence before the moment of their first written submission of pleadings, with very limited possibility to supplement thereafter.

It is possible to obtain discovery from third parties not named as plaintiff/claimant if a party can demonstrate to the court that there is evidence in the possession of that third party which is important for the assessment of the case. If urgent, this request may be submitted through provisional measures proceedings.

There is a general principle that parties are bound by a “duty of truth” which may mean that they are obliged to reveal the whole truth of their case before the court. This obligation is, however, practically mitigated by the adversarial model of litigating, which means that each party shall invoke evidence where it favours that party's position and will only rebut possible counter-arguments and evidence produced against that party. Also, evidence, once produced by either party, becomes common to both and can be used for or against both. Compelling a party to produce a specific piece of evidence does not form part of the ordinary discovery procedure but should be addressed through a specific motion to be submitted before the court.

In civil cases, evidence is produced at the initiative of the parties. Although litigants have a duty of truthfulness and good faith, there is very limited disclosure (save for specific requests by a litigant to the court for the production of documents) and pre-trial discovery in civil cases. Each party has the burden to prove the facts necessary to support their claims or defences and to produce the documentary evidence with their pleadings. The types of evidence are exhaustively listed in the GCCP. Apart from documentary evidence and witness testimonies, evidence may be in the form of expert opinion, examination of the parties and physical inspection of a site or object by the judge. 

In new Ordinary Proceedings (see also 7.1 Trial Proceedings) witnesses and experts are not examined orally (with the exception of Special Proceedings, voluntary procedures or interim measures proceedings) during the hearing, instead written testimonies are provided prior to the hearing. Each party has the right to submit up to five testimonies with the pleadings, and three testimonies with the additional pleadings, rebutting the other party’s allegations in the pleadings.

A witness statement is sworn by a witness before a notary public or a judge in the Small Claims Courts or an attorney at law (the latter has been available from 1 June 2020 as per the newly enacted COVID-19 legislation and is still in place as per Law 4842/2021). This COVID-19 related measure (and certain other measures) have been further extended with a new draft law passed on 8 December 2021.The party arranging for the witness statement must serve an advance notice (two working days prior to the date the statement is sworn) on the other party, who has the right to be present during the procedure. Failure of a party to serve notice on the other party renders the witness statement inadmissible.

The concept of legal privilege takes the form of protection of confidentiality and professional confidentiality.

Greek law recognises the concept of attorney-client privilege. The main sources of protection are the Greek Lawyers’ Code, regulating the legal profession, the Greek Lawyers’ Code of Conduct, the Greek Criminal Code, the Greek Code of Criminal Procedure and the GCCP.

Greek law provides that lawyers must keep confidential all information communicated by their clients and all information obtained when dealing with a case. Hence, lawyers may invoke legal privilege and refuse to testify in criminal and civil proceedings. The parties have the right not to produce documents with privileged information during proceedings. However, exceptions from legal privilege are provided for by Law 4557/2018, implementing European Directive 2015/849/EU, on anti-money laundering, should certain conditions be met.

All lawyers are members of a local Bar Association and subject to the same professional, ethics rules and disciplinary action with respect to legal privilege, notwithstanding their capacity as “in-house” or “independent” lawyers.

Each litigant has to disclose all supporting documentation with its pleadings and may request the court to order the disclosure of documentation in the possession of the opponent or a third party, unless there is a compelling reason justifying the non-disclosure.

Injunctive relief may be in the form of a provisional freezing of assets; an order to temporarily cease and desist from an action of behaviour; or, exceptionally, an order for specific performance. The court may order the defendant to refrain from a certain behaviour, engage in a certain action (eg, to enter into a contract or to deliver goods), restrict certain transactions, or prohibit a change from the status quo as regards an asset or a contractual relationship.

The party requesting injunctive relief must demonstrate, with a degree of certainty (but not necessarily full proof), that injunctive relief is necessary due to an urgent need for protection or an imminent danger that the applicant’s interest, claim or property will be prejudiced or frustrated by the acts or omissions of the respondent.

The plaintiff files a petition with the court and serves it on the defendant. The judge decides the location and time of the hearing.

In extremely urgent circumstances the plaintiff may request immediate injunctive relief from the court upon filing of the petition. The court has the authority to issue such relief the same day and following a very brief hearing, which may even be conducted ex parte (in the absence of the defendant). This immediate injunctive relief is very limited and remains in force until the hearing date, or the issuance of a judgment on the request for injunctive relief. In recent years, the backlog of cases for provisional measures has multiplied rapidly and courts proceed slowly with scheduling hearing dates and issuing judgments.

Injunctive relief can be obtained on an ex parte basis in cases of urgency or in order to avoid imminent risk. It is seldom granted ex parte, except in maritime cases.

If an action is dismissed as unfounded, the party who applied for injunctive relief is liable to pay compensation for the damages incurred by the execution of the judgment ordering the injunctive relief or the guarantee paid. This applies only if the applicant for injunctive relief was aware of, or ignored due to gross negligence, the fact that no such right existed.

The European Account Preservation Order is a mechanism for securing cross-border debt recovery in civil and commercial matters, in accordance with EU Regulation 655/2014.

Also, if jurisdiction can be established against a foreign respondent in Greece, injunctive relief can be obtained by local courts. This relief maybe enforced over local or foreign assets, through recognition of the exequatur of the local interim judgment or order abroad.

Injunctive relief can also be obtained against third parties. This shall be the case when a party requests, as a form of injunctive relief, that a financial institution (third party) seizes those assets of the debtor that are in its hands, or when a party seeks a garnishment.

Non-compliance with an interim order in disputes of a familial nature is punishable by imprisonment of up to one year or a monetary penalty.

The GCCP provides for the adjudication of private law disputes through the Ordinary Proceedings and Special Proceedings mechanisms.

Under Ordinary Proceedings rules, which have been recently amended to introduce a fast-track system, all evidence (including witness statements) is provided in advance of the hearing and in writing. A hearing is scheduled after written pleadings and additional/counter pleadings have been filed and there is no oral advocacy or examination of witnesses. Once they have timely filed their written pleadings and evidence, the parties are considered properly present. The Court will consider the case file and, if deemed absolutely necessary, the judge may issue an interim order for a subsequent hearing to examine witnesses.

In Special Proceedings (which include matrimonial disputes, property disputes arising out of lease agreements, labour disputes, disputes over the payment of fees and credit instruments, disputes over orders for payment, and disputes on the surrender of the use of the leasehold), other than the filing and servicing of the action, all procedures take place, in principle, during the hearing where the parties submit their pleadings presenting the appropriate evidence.

Greek procedural laws do not provide for case management hearings in any respect.

Jury trials are not available in civil cases, which are tried and decided exclusively by judges.

Under the new Ordinary Proceedings, all evidence (including witness statements) is provided in advance of the hearing in writing. In principle, the court does not perform oral examination of witnesses.

The court will consider the case file and, if deemed absolutely necessary, the judge may issue an interim order for a subsequent hearing to examine witnesses.

Each party has the burden to prove the facts supporting its own claim or defence. Only facts that have a material bearing on the outcome of the case may be the subject-matter of evidence.

Admissibility of evidence at trial depends on the type of evidence produced by each party.

Documentary evidence is admissible provided the document has been issued pursuant to the rules governing the specific class of documents (eg, the document was issued by the appropriate authority), satisfies all prerequisites for its validity (eg, it bears the necessary signature, seal, etc), is legible, is not obliterated or mutilated, has no marks, and its substantive parts have not been altered in any other manner. Documents lacking any of the foregoing requirements will be inadmissible.

Only genuine documents are considered as admissible evidence. Public documents issued by local or foreign authorities (and bearing the necessary certifications) are considered genuine and therefore constitute full evidence, unless a party objects otherwise.

A private document will be admissible in evidence only if signed by the person who has issued it and the genuineness of that signature is not contested by the other party.

The court assesses all types of evidence freely and determines the truthfulness of each party’s allegations. Facts which are known to be true beyond any doubt are taken into consideration by the court without proof. The same rule applies to facts which are already known to the court from a previous case tried by the same court, as well as to facts which are common knowledge. Evidence submitted by one party is also taken into account for the proof of the arguments of the opposing party.

Expert testimony is explicitly prescribed as a form of evidence. The court may appoint one or more experts for the clarification and better comprehension of issues, where expert scientific or technical knowledge is required. The court is obliged to order expert evidence provided that this is requested by a party and the court considers that, for the matter at stake, highly specialised knowledge is required. The expert responsible for the required testimony will be ordered by the court on the basis of a particular experts list, which is available in every civil court. On the appointment of an expert by the court, the parties can appoint other experts as their own technical advisors to assist them. The parties’ technical advisors attend the same procedures as the experts appointed by the court and can state their own opinion either orally, at the hearing, or in an expert report.

The parties can also provide expert reports that refer to a particular matter and have been drafted at their own request, even when the court has not ordered expert evidence. Such reports, however, are not binding on the court.

Court hearings are, in principle, open to the public but deliberations for the issuance of the judgment are made in secret. The judge, who is in charge for the hearing, may determine the number of persons present in the court room and may order the exclusion of minors or persons behaving inappropriately. Court hearings are open to the public, unless an open hearing might insult bonos mores or public policy.

Transcripts of hearings are only available to parties of the dispute, their attorneys and to third parties provided that they have a lawful interest. 

In Ordinary Proceedings the procedure is, in principle, written and based on the filing of pleadings and evidentiary material, without oral advocacy or examination of witnesses during the hearing. Therefore, the judge’s level of intervention is rather low compared to Special Proceedings where the procedure is mainly conducted orally (oral advocacy and examination of witnesses).

Judicial intervention is also at a minimum in administrative law disputes. The administrative litigation procedure is essentially written, notably at the inquiry level. During the debates, witnesses may be heard before the administrative courts of first instance, when they judge recourse to full jurisdiction.

The judgments of civil and administrative courts are not issued at the hearing date, but at a later stage when the judgment is issued and published. In criminal cases the court issues its judgment immediately.

In Ordinary Proceedings, after the filing of the lawsuit, the parties have 100 (or 130 in the case of foreign defendants or those of unknown residence) days to submit written pleadings and supporting documentation. The aforementioned time limits are in place for lawsuits filed before 1 January 2022. Please see 14.1 Proposals for Dispute Resolution Reform for further discussion of the recent amendment of certain provisions of the GCCP with Law 4842/2021. Then the parties have a 15-day deadline to submit their rebuttals to the opposing party’s arguments contained in the written pleadings. The court will then set a hearing date and the final decision shall be issued within eight months from hearing, the latter deadline depending on the court’s caseload.

In Special Proceedings the court sets a hearing date upon the filing of an action. Besides the filing and servicing of action, all other procedures take place during the hearing where the parties submit their pleadings and evidentiary material. Within three working days after the hearing, the parties may submit their rebuttals.

Civil claims are generally freely disposable and therefore subject to settlement.

Court settlement requires a statement before the court, the judge handling the case, or a notary. The attempt to reach a settlement can begin after the initiation of the court proceedings, at any stage of the case, and until the issuance of a non-appealable court decision. If the attempt to reach a settlement fails, the court continues with the trial. If a settlement is reached, a note is made in the court transcript and the trial is terminated.

If parties reach a settlement other than the court settlement, the settlement agreement is deemed an “out-of-court” settlement requiring the issuance of a judgment so as to be vested with an enforceable title.

The terms of the settlement of a dispute can remain confidential upon agreement of the parties.

As per court settlement, court transcripts – including the settlement of a case, although not court decisions – constitute a judicial document that can be enforced.

As per out-of-court settlement, if the parties have an interest in vesting the settlement with exequatur, so as to later enforce it, they can submit the settlement agreement for court approval.

A settlement agreement may be set aside if the facts, on the basis of which the settlement was reached, are not true and the dispute or the uncertainty would not have been created, had the parties been aware of the incorrect basis of the settlement.

There are three forms of award available to a successful litigant: a declaratory judgment of a right or obligation of a party, a judgment ordering a party to perform a specific act, and a formative judgment modifying an existing legal relationship and creating a new legal status.

Courts may award damages up to the amount requested and proved by the plaintiff. The courts have no authority to award any amount beyond that threshold or any special damages. Courts may award pecuniary relief in the form of compensation for damages (ie, direct damages including loss of profit) and moral restitution. Only in certain circumstances may the courts adjudicate monetary compensation for pain and suffering to a limited group of people (ie, the close relatives of the victim of wrongful death).

The Greek legal system does not recognise punitive damages and, if damages of such nature have been agreed, the court mitigates them to the extent fair and reasonable.

All judgments awarding monetary relief bear interest. The debtor has the right to ask for default interest at the level set by law or contract. 

The debtor, even if not in default, is liable to pay legal interest accruing from the date of service of the lawsuit or the date of the payment order for the debt that is due and payable. The percentage of litigation interest is 2% higher than the default interest rate. The latter is fixed periodically by statute.

As of the publication date of a final judgment awarding damages with interest, the percentage of litigation interest is 3% higher than the default interest rate.

An enforceable title is required for the enforcement of a domestic judgment.

The enforcement is exercised by an individual entitled to do so, who, on the official copy (apografo), gives the corresponding order to a bailiff and specifies the way in which and, if possible, the items on which the order will be enforced. In cases of seizure, a notary, where the seizure is to be effected, is designated.

Expedition of enforcement proceedings has been introduced via the simplification of execution proceedings, the consolidation of the judicial review procedure and the introduction of electronic auctions (Law 4335/2015, Law 4472/2017 and Law 4512/2018).

Special laws (eg, the Code of Collecting Public Revenue – Legislative Decree 356/1974, applicable in cases where the Greek state is the creditor/claimant; and the Legislative Decree of 17 July 1923, applicable when the creditor/claimant is either a bank operating in Greece or a corporation (Greek société anonyme or foreign company) that has acquired a special licence from the Greek state) mandate specific provisions for the enforcement of domestic judgments taking into account the nature and specific features of the creditor.

The procedures for recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in Greece depend on where such judgments were issued, and may be effected under:

  • EU laws and regulations, where the judgment has been issued from another member state;
  • international (multilateral or bilateral) treaties between Greece and non-EU countries; or
  • the GCCP governing the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in Greece.

Where EU regulations or international treaties are applicable, they supersede the GCCP.

A foreign judgment can be enforced in Greece after it has been declared enforceable by a judgment of the Single-Member Court of First Instance. Its territorial jurisdiction will derive from the domicile of the debtor, or, if there is no domicile, the residence of the debtor, or, if there is no residence, the Athens Single-Member Court of First Instance will have jurisdiction. A foreign judgment will be declared enforceable provided that it is enforceable pursuant to the law of the country where it was issued and is not contrary to the principles of bonos mores or public order in Greece. In addition, a Greek court will refuse to declare a foreign judgment enforceable where:

  • the foreign judgment was issued by a court that lacked jurisdiction;
  • the defeated party was not afforded a fair trial or was denied the right to participate in the court proceedings, unless that deprivation was effected pursuant to a legal provision applicable to the citizens of the country in which the foreign court sits as well as foreigners in that country;
  • the foreign decision conflicts with a decision of the Greek courts for the same case and is res judicata for the parties involved in the proceedings; or
  • the foreign judgment violates the principles of bonos mores and the public order in Greece.

First instance judgments are subject to appeal before appellate courts.

Small Claims Court judgments are contested in the Single-Member Court of First Instance. Single-Member Court of First Instance judgments are contested in the Single-Member Court of Appeals and Multi-member Court of First Instance judgments are contested in the Three-Members Court of Appeals. Judgments issued by the Small Claims Courts for minor disputes (eg, claims and rights on movable property with a value not exceeding EUR5,000) are irrevocable.

An appeal in cassation is possible before the Supreme Court, which examines only the legal correctness of judgments issued by the Greek courts of first and second instance.

Parties may appeal a judgment when they are wholly or partially defeated in the first instance and the judgment erred in fact or law. The party who won the first-degree trial may file for an appeal only if it has a lawful interest.

The decisions are appealable only to the extent that they are either final or refer the dispute to the competent court. The grounds of an appeal can be both/either procedural and/or substantive.

Enforcement of a first instance judgment is suspended during the time period available for the filing of the appeal, unless the first instance judgment has been declared as temporarily enforceable against the defeated party.

An appeal should be filed within 30 days from the service of judgment to the other party if the party resides in Greece or 60 days if the party resides abroad or is of unknown residence. If judgment is not served, the appeal can be filed within a two-year period from the date the judgment was published. Once an appeal is filed and a hearing is scheduled, the opponent has the opportunity to file (and serve) a counter-appeal, at the latest, 30 days before the hearing date of the initial appeal. Also, the party that filed an appeal may file (and serve) additional appeal grounds, at the latest, 30 days before the hearing date of the appeal.

The subject matter of an appeal involves errors of the first instance courts on questions of law and/or fact. An appeal in cassation to the Areios Pagos may be taken only for questions of law.

A re-hearing of the first instance judgment is only mandatory if one of parties was not present at the hearing before the court of first instance.

The appellate court shall only examine the grounds (their admissibility and soundness) that are presented in the appeal and not the first instance judgment as a whole.

New points, not explored at first instance, cannot be raised at an appeal.

No conditions can be imposed by the court on the granting of an appeal.

The appellate court shall examine the admissibility of the appeal, assess its grounds, and – if it finds them admissible and sound – shall retain the case and decide on its merits.

As per the established courts practice, if there is one defendant and they lose the case, the court is likely to order the latter to pay attorneys' fees (amounting to approximately 2% of the amount claimed in the case), plus any other court expenses, such as stamp duty, judicial stamp (amounting to approximately 1.1% of the amount claimed), translation costs, court bailiff costs and/or other expenses paid by the claimant for the preparation of the claim and/or the production of exhibits. If there are multiple defendants and they lose the case, the court may either order them to pay an equal share of the claimant's aforementioned attorney and court fees or allocate them to the defendants proportionally, according to their liability. Furthermore, the court may set off the attorney and court expenses between the parties, if the interpretation of the rules applied was deemed to be particularly difficult.

The unsuccessful party is required to pay both court and legal costs. Court expenses are “only judicial and extrajudicial expenses that were necessary for the trial” and in particular are: stamp duties; judicial revenue stamp duty; attorneys’ minimum fees set by the Greek Lawyers’ Code; witnesses’ and experts’ expenses; and the successful party’s travelling expenses incurred by attending the hearing. Expenses incurred through the party’s own fault or due to excessive prudence are not recoverable.

It lies in the court’s discretion to award expenses in whole or in part and to order the payment of these by the defeated party. It should be noted that Greek courts award costs that are usually substantially lower than those actually incurred.

Further to the issuance of the judgment and after the commencement of the enforcement procedure, interest applies to the total amount awarded, including costs.

A stable and increasing trend has been noticeable in recent years, demonstrating a preference on the part of sophisticated commercial parties for resolution of their disputes by alternative adjudicating bodies, rather than courts. Mediation had not been popular but Law 4640/2019 aimed to establish an attempt at mediation as a prerequisite to resorting to the courts.

Law 4512/2018 incorporated Directive 2008/52/EC for mandatory mediation in civil and commercial matters aiming to relieve the courts of the overwhelming majority of cases. However, its enactment generated a heated debate among local practitioners resulting in the suspension of its provisions pertaining to mandatory mediation, which were abolished by means of Article 33 of Law 4640/2019.

The enactment of Law 4640/2019 on Mediation in Civil and Commercial Disputes, as well as further harmonisation of the Greek legislation with the provisions of Directive 2008/52/EC, aims at expediting legal proceedings offering a fast-track enforceable title to parties successfully participating in the mediation procedure. (See also 3.1 Rules on Pre-action Conduct.)

There are numerous institutions in Greece offering and promoting ADR such as:

  • the Athens Chamber of Commerce and Industry;
  • the Hellenic Centre of Mediation and Arbitration;
  • the Regulatory Authority for Energy (RAE);
  • the Hellenic Chamber of Shipping;
  • the Piraeus Association for Maritime Arbitration;
  • the Technical Chamber of Greece;
  • the Hellenic Consumer Ombudsman;
  • the Hellenic Ombudsman for Banking – Investment Services and;
  • the EODID Athens Mediation & Arbitration Organisation.

The framework of the new mediation regime has established a committee (the Central Mediation Committee) to, among other things, monitor mediation procedures and provide registration for mediators and for mediator certification entities.

Parties involved in international commercial arbitration proceedings in Greece can apply Law 2735/1999, incorporating, with minor amendments, the UNCITRAL Model Law as in force at the time of its adoption. This secures consistency with international arbitration standards and makes Greece an attractive arbitration forum for international arbitration disputes. 

The Greek legal regime on arbitration is dualistic. Law 2735/1999 governs international commercial arbitration in Greece. Domestic arbitrations or arbitrations of a non-commercial nature (where Law 2735/1999 is not applicable), are regulated by the provisions of the GCCP (Articles 687-903). The GCCP may also apply directly or indirectly to international commercial arbitration if an issue is not specifically governed by Law 2735/1999 and vice versa.

Arbitration is considered to be "international" if:

  • the parties’ seats are in different countries when they enter into the arbitration agreement;
  • the location of the arbitration, or the site where the contractual obligations should be fulfilled, is in a different country to that in which the parties have their registered seat; or
  • the parties have expressly agreed that the arbitration agreement’s subject matter is connected to several countries.

There is no universally accepted definition as to the commercial aspect of an international commercial arbitration. As such, arbitration is mainly considered to be commercial when the dispute in question involves a transactional or economic matter.

Greece signed and ratified the 1958 New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards pursuant to Legislative Decree No 4220/1961. The convention entered into force in Greece on 14 October 1962.

Greece has made two reservations under Article 1(3) of the New York Convention, namely:

  • the Convention applies exclusively with respect to arbitral awards issued in another contracting state; and
  • it applies only to awards issued on disputes of a commercial nature.

As per the GCCP on domestic arbitration, any private legal dispute, the subject matter of which can be freely disposed of by the parties, is in principal arbitrable. Any type of dispute failing to fulfil these prerequisites is not arbitrable.

Non-arbitrable include disputes include the following.

  • Those relating to the personal status of individuals (eg, marital disputes and disputes between parents and children).
  • Those that fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of other adjudication bodies (eg, cases concerning the violation of competition rules will be heard by the Competition Commission).
  • Those that arise:
    1. between employers and employees;
    2. from collective bargaining agreements;
    3. between professionals and small and medium-sized entities or between these entities and their clients regarding work performed or goods manufactured; and
    4. between social security institutions and the insured, unless these disputes are of a commercial nature (to be determined on a case-by-case basis).

Disputes concerning IP, antitrust, competition, securities and intracompany issues to the extent they relate to matters that cannot be freely disposed of by the parties (eg, registering a trademark or patent) are not arbitrable, but are in other respects (eg, claims for compensation).

There are also special statutory provisions, especially in investment incentive laws, that allow matters, which otherwise cannot be freely disposed of by the parties, to be submitted to arbitration (such as tax disputes between the state and the investor).

Under Law 2735/1999, the above rule also applies to international commercial arbitration.

In international commercial arbitration, challenge of an arbitration award is permitted in exceptional circumstances. A petition seeking to set aside an award must be filed with the court of appeal of the place of arbitration within three months from the date on which the arbitral award was received by the party filing the claim.

An arbitral award is not subject to appeal. However, in domestic arbitration cases the parties can foresee, in the arbitration agreement, their right to challenge the arbitral award before a different arbitral tribunal, provided that they determine the conditions, time limits and procedure applicable to the submission and examination of such a challenge. Moreover, the GCCP also provides for the declaration of the non-existence of an arbitral award if:

  • there is no arbitration agreement at all;
  • the dispute was non-arbitrable; or
  • the award was issued in an arbitration involving a non-existing individual or legal entity.

An award will be considered final, binding and enforceable; and will give rise to res judicata on its filing in the Single-Member Court of First Instance (as per the GCCP) and publication (as per Law 2735/1999). Enforcement of the award in cases of failure to comply will be conducted on the basis of the GCCP’s specific provisions that provide for compulsory enforcement.

An arbitral award issued in Greece gives rise to res judicata and is enforceable in Greece as of the date of the award. Res judicata is determined in accordance with the provisions of the GCCP and concerns the merits of the dispute and the procedural issues that were finally adjudicated by the tribunal. Res judicata extends over the parties to the dispute and their successors. The only formality that must be observed for the enforcement of an arbitral award is the filing of the award with the secretariat of the Single-Member Court of First Instance in the place where the arbitration was held.

The most recent reform, following the amendments to the GCCP with Law 4335/2015, is the amendment of certain provisions of the GCCP with the enactment of Law 4842/2021, aiming to accelerate proceedings through the proper functioning of civil litigation with the use of modern technology. From 1 January 2022, major changes to the previous system will be in place with limited exceptions. These include the following.

  • In Ordinary Proceedings, after the service of the lawsuit, the parties have 90 (or 120 in the case of foreign defendants or those of unknown residence) days to submit pleadings and supporting documentation.
  • Claims arising after the expiry of the time limit for the submission of pleadings can be submitted no later than 20 days before the hearing (this also applies to pending lawsuits).
  • Agreement of the parties on the non-issuance of a decision after the hearing does not produce legal consequences; this deprives parties of the possibility to settle after the hearing.
  • It is explicitly provided in which cases an affidavit shall not be considered by the court and in which cases the invocation of procedural damage for insignificant deficiencies shall be required (such as the profession of the witness).

Due to the COVID-19 outbreak, a general suspension of all procedures within the Greek judicial system was introduced from 13 March 2020 until 31 May 2020 and then again from 7 November 2020 until 5 April 2021, with limited exceptions. This affected court operations, procedural deadlines for filings, hearings as well limitation periods, with certain exceptions in relation to urgent matters (eg, where petitions for provisional orders were being examined).

According to the Greek Civil Code, if an event of suspension (moratorium, force majeure event) occurred within the last six months before the expiration of the limitation period, the statute of limitations is extended.

Moussas & Partners

11 Marinou Antypa Street
(Olympic Stadium Area – N. Iraklio)
141 21 Athens

+30 210 339 2070

+30 210 339 0591
Author Business Card

Trends and Developments


Koutalidis Law Firm is situated in Athens and consists of 50 partners and associates. The firm has recently handled, or is currently handling, a substantial number of complex, high-value cases before all levels of the Greek judicial system and a significant number of arbitrations (either institutional or ad hoc), most of them international. Key clients of the firm’s arbitration, litigation and mediation department include a number of prominent companies, such as Hochtief, Vinci, Tecnimont, Invensys, Aegean Motorway, Fraport Greece, Aegean Airlines, Deutsche Bank, Alpha Bank, National Bank of Greece, Cyprus Popular Bank, ANEK, Intrasoft International, the Hellenic Republic Asset Development Fund; major pharmaceutical companies/distributors such as Genesis Pharma and Jakovides Hellas; as well as shipping and industry magnates.


The main trends and developments affecting the practice of litigation in Greece are expected to be brought on by the recently passed reform of the Greek Code of Civil Procedure (GCCP), which, as of 1 January 2022, will extensively amend and clarify the current version of the code.

Other than that, individual pieces of legislation which have been enacted are expected to affect several different aspects of the conduct of litigation in Greece.

Law 4842/2021 on the Reform of the GCCP

In October 2021, the Greek Parliament passed Law 4842/2021 on the acceleration of civil trials, the digitalisation of civil procedure and the introduction of a further span of amendments to the GCCP. The effective date of the reform has been set to be on 1 January 2022. The spectrum of the upcoming changes is wide, and the aim of this article cannot be the comprehensive presentation of the ongoing reform, but rather a focus on some of the most important provisions and the rationale behind them.

As per the official explanatory memorandum of the new law, the legislature’s aim is to substantially improve the quality of the Greek judicial administration system. It should be stressed that the current amendments have been a result of reflection on and assessment of the previous extensive reform of the GCCP, which was introduced by Law 4335/2015 (in force since 1 January 2016).

More specifically, the results of the first three years of the application of the so-called “new” GCCP have been monitored by a specially appointed working group, which has reached a number of conclusions regarding the outcomes of the 2015 reform and the steps necessary for the achievement of further advances in the operation of Greek civil justice – and predominantly in the operation of some of the busiest Greek courts (such as the Court of First Instance of Athens). Some of the most significant innovations of Law 4842/2021 are set out below.

Introduction of pilot trials before the Supreme Civil and Criminal Court of Greece (Areios Pagos)

Drawing from the relevant provisions of the Greek Code of Administrative Procedure, the new Article 20A of the GCCP introduces the concept of “pilot trials” in civil justice. Pilot trials are intended to conclusively resolve contentious legal matters, in order to accelerate the administration of civil justice and bolster legal certainty.

Under these newly introduced provisions, the parties to a civil dispute will be able to file a motion or the competent court will be able to issue a preliminary decision, asking a three-member committee of the Supreme Civil and Criminal Court to refer to the Plenary Session any dispute raising a “new complex interpretative legal matter of general interest and repercussions for a wide group of persons.” Alternatively, the Attorney General of the Supreme Civil and Criminal Court will be able to directly refer the matter to the Plenary Session (without the need for intervention by the above mentioned three-member committee). After the Plenary Session has resolved the matter, the case will be referred back to the lower court, in order for the later to proceed with issuing a decision on the merits of the particular case.

The relevant provision has already been heavily criticised by members of the legal community, including the Greek Union of Judges and Public Prosecutors on more than one ground. First of all, it has been argued that the concept of a pilot trial might be incompatible with the fact that under the Greek legal order the affirmation of a law's constitutionality is an exercise undertaken by courts of all instances. What is more, concerns have been expressed as regards the drafting of the provision and the impact pilot trials might have on ongoing proceedings that raise the same legal issue as the one referred to the Supreme Civil and Criminal Court.

Digital signatures and identification

Article 118 of the GCCP is supplemented with the inclusion of some clarifications regarding the probative force of electronic documents, as opposed to traditional paper ones. More specifically, the new provision clarifies that signatures on electronic documents can be embedded by the mere electronic verification of the issuer (“authentication”), in accordance with the procedures and conditions laid down by the legal framework governing digital authentication.

Electronic filing and service of documents

The amendment of the provisions on the electronic filing (Article 119 of the GCCP) and service (Article 122A of the GCCP) of documents is a result of the developments of the national and EU framework on electronic verification of documents. More specifically, the amendment of Articles 119 and 122A of the GCCP follows the repeal of the Presidential Decree 150/2001 (incorporating Directive 1999/93/EC) by Law 4727/2020 (implementing Regulation 910/2014/EU).

Article 119 of the GCCP lays down the process for the electronic filing of documents. Electronic filing is already possible if the documents embed an electronic signature or stamp which is legally equivalent to the handwritten signature of the author. The documents are considered to have been submitted if an electronic receipt is returned to the sender of the document by the court. However, Law 4842/2021 introduces an additional method of electronic filing for documents without an embedded electronic signature or stamp, which shall be effective as of 1 January 2022. As of that date, it shall be possible to file documents electronically if the courts have in place an electronic system of communication, which is accessible to pre-registered users. The relevant system shall permit the identification of the pre-registered users, the electronic submission of documents and the sending of an auto-generated copy of the filed documents. 

As regards the electronic service of documents, the recently introduced provision of Article 122A of the GCCP undergoes a number of amendments regarding the legal requirements for service by electronic means. More specifically, as of 1 January 2022, electronic service will be possible for documents bearing an approved electronic signature as per Article 2(20) of Law 4727/2020. Electronic service is considered effective only if the court bailiff receives a receipt of the document, which in turn bears the approved electronic signature (Article 2(20) of Law 4727/2020) of the person to whom the documents are being served.

Allocation of judicial expenses

Article 179 brings back – at least to an extent – the discretionary power of the court to order the partial allocation of judicial expenses between the parties in the event of reasonable doubts as to the outcome of the trial.

The relevant discretionary power had been abolished by Law 2915/2001, with the intention of putting an end to the widespread abuse of the provision which had de facto invalidated the principle that it is the losing party who shall bear the costs of the trial (“principle of defeat”). However, the absolute eradication of the court’s discretion on this matter has been found to have severe and unwelcome effects. What is more, the provision has not been uniformly applied by the courts. Law 4842/2021 partially re-establishes the courts’ discretion to allocate the expenses between the parties. More specifically, courts will have the power to order the partial offsetting of the expenses between the parties in the event reasonable doubts exist regarding the outcome of the trial.

Changes to the deadline for the submission of pleadings (protaseis)

One of the most significant reforms introduced by Law 4842/2021 concerns the amendment of Article 237 of the GCCP on the calculation of the deadline for the submission of the parties’ pleadings. The relevant amendment, which lies at the heart of civil procedure, remedies a much-discussed asymmetry between the parties as regards the time they have at their disposal for the preparation and submission of their pleadings.

More specifically, the new provision disconnects the calculation of the deadline for the submission of pleadings from the filing of the action by the plaintiff. Under the currently applicable framework, the plaintiff essentially has 100 days to prepare their pleadings, as opposed to 70 days for the respondent. As regards those residing abroad, or being of unknown residence, the deadline extends to 130 days since the filing of the action. As a more even solution, the new Article 237 of the GCCP provides that, as of 1 January 2022, both parties can file their pleadings within 90 days from the lapse of the deadline for the service of the action and 120 days for those residing abroad or being of unknown residence.

This new method of calculation is not only more equitable, but also easier to use, in the sense that it sets an objective point of reference for the beginning of the deadline, instead of the movable and debatable event of the action’s service. Moreover, it results in an extension of the deadline for the filing of the pleadings by 20 days, thereby addressing the complaints of parties that the currently applicable deadline of 100 days is too short. 

Furthermore, some clarifications are provided as regards matters which have troubled the Greek civil courts in the application of the new GCCP, such as the calculation of the relevant deadlines in the event the court refers the case to another court or declares the hearing null due to procedural deficiencies. More specifically, Law 4842/2021 provides that in such cases, the relevant deadlines of 90 and 120 days begin on the filing of the summons (klisi) for the determination of the hearing date.

Inclusion of new claims in the rejoinder

The new paragraph 8 of Article 237 of the GCCP (as amended by Law 4842/2021) provides for the ability of the parties to include in their rejoinders (prosthiki) new claims, in the event these claims:

  • concern events that occurred after the lapse of the deadline for the submission of the rejoinder and the deadline for the submission of the statement of defence (antikrousi);
  • can be proved in writing; or
  • can be proved by the other party’s judicial confession.

As of 1 January 2022, parties will have the opportunity to submit the above claims at the latest 20 days prior to the hearing, while the defence against them cannot be submitted later than ten days prior to the hearing.

Under the current version of the GCCP, the parties need to file an appeal in the event they want to submit such claims. This approach has been found to be too rigid, especially if a considerable time has passed between the closing of the case file and the determination of the date of the hearing. Be that as it may, the Greek Union of Judges and Public Prosecutors has expressed its scepticism regarding the application of the new provision to cases in which the closing of the case file and the determination of the hearing date are not substantially far apart in time.

Prohibition of agreements between the parties regarding the issuance of a decision

A new passage has been added to paragraph 1 of Article 308 of the GCCP, providing that after the hearing of the case, the parties can no longer reach any valid agreement aiming at the non-issuance of a court decision. The parties can still cancel the hearing, in accordance with the provisions of Article 260 of the GCCP. However, after the case has been heard, the parties lose control over the progress and the outcome of the case. From that point onwards, the matter is the sole responsibility of the court.

Inclusion of psychologists in the list of excluded witnesses

As of 1 January 2022, psychologists will be included in the list of persons who cannot be called to testify in a civil trial, due to the confidential nature of the relationship between them and their clients, in the context of which clients share their sensitive personal data (Article 400 of the GCCP). Psychologists will be able to refuse to testify as regards information confided to them in their professional capacity (Article 401 of the GCCP).

Solemn declarations

Under the new version of the GCCP (Article 421), it will be possible, under certain conditions, to give solemn declarations before a lawyer. Currently, solemn declarations can only be given before notary publics, judges in the District Courts or consuls (in the event the witness resides abroad). Under the new provision, a solemn declaration can be given before a lawyer registered with the Bar Association of the court’s seat or of the place of the witness’s residence, but not before the attorneys of the parties. The lawyer before whom the declaration is given sends it electronically to their Bar Association and receives an electronic receipt. The lawyer issues copies of the solemn declaration along with the relevant electronic receipt.

What is more, the number of solemn declarations which can be brought before the court as proof of the parties’ claims is being reduced (Article 422 of the GCCP). At present, each party can bring five solemn declarations to support its pleadings and three to rebut the claims proposed by the other party. This number has been found to be excessive for the courts and as of 1 January 2022 their number will be cut off to three and two, respectively.

What is more, Law 4842/2021 introduces certain amendments to the provisions regarding the deficiencies that can invalidate solemn declarations.

Small claims procedure

The current version of the GCCP adopts a special procedure for small claims, which deviates from the standard procedure which has been introduced by Law 4335/2015. It has, however, been observed that this special procedure for small claims can be significantly delayed in the larger District Courts – reaching the timeline of the standard procedure.

To correct this state of affairs, the legislature has proceeded with the “transplantation” of certain provisions of the standard procedure which have been successful in speeding up its time frame to the small claims’ procedure. Such provisions include the quick setting of the date of the hearing and the limitation of the options for calling off or postponing that hearing. The new procedure is designed to be simple, flexible, and swift.

Law 4816/2021 on the Acceleration of the Procedure before the Administrative Courts

Articles 12–16 of Law 4816/2021 have been introduced by the legislature in an effort to accelerate and render more efficient the administration of justice before the Greek administrative courts.

More specifically, the main reforms entered touch on the territorial (ratione loci) jurisdiction of the administrative courts and provide for an increase of the positions of judges in the regular administrative courts.

Law 4811/2021 on Intellectual Property Disputes

Article 62 of Law 4811/2021 introduces a special provision on disputes concerning intellectual property rights arising in the context of educational programmes in non-profit organisations with a minimum annual budget of EUR10 million.

The relevant cases are scheduled for hearing within 60 days since the lapse of the deadlines of Article 237 of the GCCP and cannot be postponed, by way of derogation from Article 241 of the GCCP. The issuance of the decision cannot take more than 60 days after the date of the hearing.

Law 4745/2020 on the Acceleration of Proceedings Opened by Over-Indebted Individuals and the Introduction of Amendments to the Greek Lawyers’ Code, et al

Law 4645/2020 has introduced a number of provisions affecting various aspects of the practice of litigation in Greece.

Acceleration of proceedings opened by over-indebted individuals

Article 1 of Law 4745/2020 has introduced some important amendments in Law 3869/2010 (ie, the law on over-indebted individuals) aiming at the acceleration of the procedures opened by over-indebted individuals and which have been scheduled to be heard after 15 June 2021.

The aim of the relevant provisions has been the clearance of the case lists from inactive applications. More specifically, the interested parties had to file an electronic request for the rescheduling of their cases if these have been scheduled to be heard after the 15 June 2021, otherwise the applications are considered never to have been filed. The deadline for the submission of the relevant applications for rescheduling lapsed on 15 July 2021.

Ne bis in idem in cases of illicit trade and tax evasion

Article 32 of Law 4745/2020 amends Laws 2960/2001 and 4174/2013, thereby aligning Greek legislation with the decision of the European Court of Human Rights of 30 April 2015 in Kapetanios and others v Greece concerning the right to the presumption of innocence and to the right not to be tried or punished twice (ne bis in idem). The relevant provisions are also in line with Decision No 359/2020 of the Plenary Session of the Council of the State (ie, the Greek Supreme Administrative Court) on the scope and application of the principle of ne bis in idem.

More specifically, Article 32 of Law 4745/2020 provides that the issuance of an administrative act imposing fees for customs offences (which also apply to the crime of illicit trading) leads to the suspension of related penal proceedings, as well as to the suspension of the crime’s prescription. The suspension lasts until the finalisation of the administrative act or, if an appeal has been lodged against it, until the issuance of the relevant irrevocable decision of the administrative court. The relevant administrative proceedings are prioritised by the administrative courts. As a result, the criminal courts, when examining the relevant crimes of illicit trade, will have at their disposal the irrevocable administrative decision on the lawfulness of the administrative act.

On the same grounds, the legislature has introduced similar provisions as regards the unfolding of the administrative and penal proceedings regarding the crime of tax evasion of Article 66 of Law 4174/2013. More specifically, the action of the Tax Authority, which is the basis for the criminal offence of tax evasion, leads to the ex officio suspension of the relevant criminal proceedings and to the suspension of the crime’s prescription. The suspension lasts until the finalisation of the administrative act or, if an appeal has been lodged against it, until the issuance of the relevant irrevocable decision of the administrative court.

Remotely held judicial conferences

Article 36 of Law 4745/2020 provides that in exceptional circumstances the conferences of Greek courts can be held remotely via technological means that ensure their secrecy, if due to insurmountable obstacles the participation of one or more judges in them is impossible. The law also contains certain additional administrative provisions designed to enable the smooth running of the relevant procedures.

Koutalidis Law Firm

115, Kifissias Avenue (The Orbit)

+30 210 360 7811

+30 210 360 0069
Author Business Card

Law and Practice


Moussas & Partners is a multidisciplinary legal practice based in Athens, Greece. The firm numbers thirteen attorneys and four trainees. It has a breadth of experience in complex transactions and dispute resolution and a distinguished record in acting for clients from a variety of industries and countries, before local courts as well as in international and local arbitration fora. Clients include the VW Group, Kraft Heinz, Hugo Boss, Nielsen, Siemens and Sony. Notably, the firm has been acting for the various companies of one of Greece’s leading industrial groups, Mytilineos SA. Furthermore, the firm has defended manufacturers, distributors and dealers of products in cases related to alleged design or manufacturing defects. Highlights of the firm’s track record include the defence of VW Group in diesel emissions litigation cases securing favourable and precedent-setting outcomes in a matter with worldwide repercussions, and in arbitration, the successful representation of Mytilineos Holdings in a BIT dispute against Serbia.

Trends and Development


Koutalidis Law Firm is situated in Athens and consists of 50 partners and associates. The firm has recently handled, or is currently handling, a substantial number of complex, high-value cases before all levels of the Greek judicial system and a significant number of arbitrations (either institutional or ad hoc), most of them international. Key clients of the firm’s arbitration, litigation and mediation department include a number of prominent companies, such as Hochtief, Vinci, Tecnimont, Invensys, Aegean Motorway, Fraport Greece, Aegean Airlines, Deutsche Bank, Alpha Bank, National Bank of Greece, Cyprus Popular Bank, ANEK, Intrasoft International, the Hellenic Republic Asset Development Fund; major pharmaceutical companies/distributors such as Genesis Pharma and Jakovides Hellas; as well as shipping and industry magnates.

Compare law and practice by selecting locations and topic(s)


Select Topic(s)

loading ...

Please select at least one chapter and one topic to use the compare functionality.