Greece is a civil law jurisdiction. Laws are promulgated by the legislature and, under limited circumstances, by the executive. They take 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 EU law (primary and secondary) that supersede national laws. Custom is of limited use.

Greek courts do not have law-making powers and are not bound by judicial precedents. However, in general, courts adhere to established case law and especially to the judgments of the Supreme Civil and Criminal Court (Areios Pagos, or the “Supreme Court”) ‒ as well as to Supreme Administrative Court (Conseil d’ Etat, the “Council of State”) judgments, 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 in order to expedite procedures in first and second instance courts. Significant amendments were also introduced by Law 4842/2021 and Law 5016/2023 (hereinafter “International Arbitration Law” or “IAL”). The most recent reform is the amendment of certain provisions of the GCCP with Law 5108/2024 and Law 5134/2024. The amendments mainly concern jurisdictional issues, with the principal alteration being the consolidation of the first instance jurisdiction by the abolishment of the small claims courts. The new framework of the GCCP is effective as of 16 September 2024. From this date onwards, in addition to the central seats of courts of first instance there are also parallel seats and regional seats of courts of first instance. An exception is temporarily introduced with respect to the regional seats of the Athens and Piraeus courts of first instance, the subject-matter jurisdiction of which is restricted until 15 September 2026 to the subject-matter jurisdiction of the former Small Claim Courts. However, from 16 September 2026 onwards the full subject-matter jurisdiction over the cases of the single-member courts of first instance shall also extend to these regional seats. Furthermore, by Law 5095/2024 certain tasks and proceedings, previously taking place through the judicial authorities, have now been assigned to lawyers (eg, issuance of a certificate of inheritance right “klironomitirio”, procedure for the registration and removal of a consensual mortgage notice).

The legal process in criminal courts is principally oral, whereas in administrative courts the rule is that submissions must always be written but 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

As of 16 September 2024, the GCCP provides for two types of civil courts of first instance.

Single-member courts of first instance have jurisdiction over disputes whose value does not exceed the amount of EUR250,000, and ‒ in exceptional cases – over certain disputes regardless of the amount, depending on their nature (indicatively, labour and family law disputes).

Multi-member courts of first instance comprise three judges and have jurisdiction over disputes for which the single-member courts of first instance are not competent (ie, if the value of the dispute exceeds EUR250,000). In certain cases, these courts also serve as appellate courts for judgments issued by the single-member courts of first instance. In the second instance, the multi-member courts of first instance review decisions of the single-member courts of first instance depending on the nature and value of the dispute in question. Single-member courts of appeal (each consisting of one appellate judge) also review decisions of the single-member courts of first instance under the cases provided for in the GCCP (eg, in cases where the multi-member court of first instance is not competent as an appellate court). Three-member courts of appeal (each consisting of three appellate judges) review decisions of the multi-member courts of first instance.

The Supreme Court 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, IP 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, which is a major international maritime hub.

Administrative courts are subdivided into administrative courts of first instance, administrative courts of appeal, and the Council of State, which is the highest court of the administrative arm of justice. If the Supreme Court 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 Supreme Court 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 and the Supreme Court. Furthermore, as well as juvenile courts, there are special criminal courts that try cases involving offences by military personnel serving in the army, navy or air force (eg, courts-martial, naval courts and air force courts).

The time a case takes from the commencement of legal proceedings to trial can vary significantly depending on several factors, including the type of case (civil, criminal or administrative), the type of proceedings (ordinary or special), the complexity of the matter itself, and the specific court involved as well as its workload.

According to the Constitution, judicial proceedings are open to the public ‒ unless an open hearing might insult bonos mores or public policy.

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

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

Law 5090/2024 has amended, as of 1 May 2024, article 363 of penal code on slanderous defamation. A key concept for slanderous defamation to be attributed to someone is the notion of “third party” before whom the knowingly dissemination of false allegations should be made. Law 5090/2024 clarified this notion by explicitly mentioning in new provision 363 of penal code that public servants or employees becoming aware of allegations made by litigant parties, while they are exercising their duties in the context of civil, penal or administrative proceedings, do not qualify as “third parties” for the purposes of this provision. This new provision has therefore solved a recurring issue, which has attracted in the past the interest of legal scholars and case law.

Eligibility of a lawyer to appear before Greek courts depends on their registration 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.

Any EU citizen may appear before Greek courts if they are a qualified lawyer in an EU member state who is 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).

Βy means of Law 4938/2022, when a lawyer represents a client, in their capacity as an associate or partner of a law firm, the corporate name and registered seat of such law firm should be also mentioned on the judgment to be issued by the court.

The notion of litigation funding by a third party is not conceived of – or structured by – any specific legislation, although certain insurance companies offer legal-expenses protection covering the costs of litigation. There are no rules for restrictions on funders, however. A litigation funding arrangement could currently take the form of a loan combined with the 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, regulating 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 option to resort to mediation for the resolution of the dispute (effective as of 30 November 2019). The acknowledgment of this notification must be filed before the competent court, together with the writ initiating proceedings or the pleadings – otherwise the hearing shall be considered inadmissible.

The aforementioned notification requirements and the consequences in case of non-compliance are burdensome, have received criticism from both scholars and practitioners and have been already held as unconstitutional by several courts. 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 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 that include an explicit mediation clause.

The written notification by 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 (art. 6, par. 3 of Law 4640/2019). For this type of disputes, Law 5108/2024 has further abolished the requirement for attorneys to inform their clients about the option of mediation and the respective procedural consequence (dismissal of the hearing of the case as inadmissible) (art. 3, par. 3 of Law 4640/2019).

State Fee

Law 4640/2019 provides a significant cost for 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, including lawsuits requesting only a declaratory judgment. Under the previously applicable regime this fee could be avoided if a lawsuit requested a declaratory judgment only; however, this option has now been abolished.

Although the above-mentioned law has received criticism from the legal community, case law seems to be divided on this specific issue since both approaches have been upheld. There are courts, which have ruled on the lack of constitutionality of this provision (namely Article 42 of Law 4640/2019), whereas on the other hand, the opposite approach has also been adopted by judgments ruling in favour of the compatibility of this provision with the Constitution.

As per existing case law (Judgment no. 538/2019 of the Supreme Court and judgment no. 1425/2021 of Thessaloniki Three-Member Court of Appeal) it has been held that it is permissible to file the state fee for the first time before a second instance court.

Other Pre-action Requirements

In principle, there are no pre-action requirements (eg, 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 (indicatively, the order for the delivery of a leased property), however, service of an extrajudicial 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 limitations 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 limitations 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.

Jurisdiction has several meanings under Greek law.

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

The concept of jurisdiction is further distinguished into:

• subject-matter jurisdiction, which refers to the power of a certain category of courts (eg, the single-member court of first instance or the multi-member court of first instance) to adjudicate over a certain class of cases; and
• territorial jurisdiction of a specific court, which refers to the power of that court to adjudicate a particular claim.

A 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 ‒ for example, the place of the tortuous act, the place of execution of the agreement from which the dispute arises, the location of real property, or the auxiliary nature of a claim.

Some of these jurisdictional bases may be exclusive and force the plaintiff to bring the action in the court of a specific district. (Actions regarding interests in real property, for example, 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 the tortuous conduct took place). In disputes arising from ‒ or in connection with – a contract that includes a clause on jurisdiction, Greek courts will review the validity and effect of this clause on jurisdiction.

A lawsuit is initiated by physically or electronically filing a written pleading (complaint) with the court in which the action is brought; 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, owing to 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 the relief sought – ie, whether monetary or non-monetary – with clarity and precision. As a general rule, the initial pleading may not be amended once filed, except for minor clarifications or amendments that 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
• 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 and 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 in question (with an official translation).

The date of service is rather crucial since, if the service of the claim has not been effectuated on the defendant in a timely manner, the claim is considered as never lodged. In general, the date of service is taken as when the claim has been physically delivered to the defendant or a suitable person (eg, a family member). Especially in case of service abroad through the Public Prosecutor channel (in its capacity as a transmitting authority), the Supreme Court by its decision no. 1181/2022 has accepted that a lawsuit is considered filed when the service is performed within time limit to the Public Prosecutor (notional service), even if the actual service to the defendant abroad occurs beyond the deadline. This consideration is based on the fact that the time of actual service to the defendant is entirely outside the plaintiff’s control. However, the legal community is divided as to the proper date of service in cases of services abroad – ie, the date of service to the Public Prosecutor (notional service) or the date of actual service to the defendant abroad (actual service) – due to Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 2020/1784 on the service in the Member States of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters (service of documents) which provides for a certificate of completion upon completion of the formalities of the service.

In ordinary proceedings, an action must be served to the defendant within:

• 30 days of the date it was lodged; and
• 60 days of the date it was lodged if the defendant or any co-defendant(s) either:
1. reside(s) abroad; or
2. are persons of unknown residence.

In other proceedings, an action must be served to the defendant 30 days prior to the hearing date, or 60 days prior to the hearing date if the defendant or any co-defendant(s) either reside(s) abroad or are persons of unknown residence.

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.

Collective actions are mainly provided for under the Consumer Protection Law (Law 2251/1994). The relevant framework underwent amendment as per enacted Law 5019/2023 transposing Directive (EU) 2020/1828 on representative actions for the protection of the collective interests of consumers and repealing Directive 2009/22/EC. The new law reforms the collective redress landscape and includes certain provisions regulating collective actions, which are re-named as “representative actions”. It entered into force on 26 June 2023 and applies to representative actions filed from 25 June 2023 onwards.

There is no requirement to provide clients with a cost estimate at the outset of potential litigation; instead, it is at the discretion of counsel. However, such a requirement could be considered among lawyers’ ethical obligations, especially when extraordinarily high costs are 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 conservatory measures – ie, 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 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 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 following mechanisms: intervention, request for joinder, and announcement of the dispute.

Intervention

Intervention is available to a third party with 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 to request protection against all other parties.
• Supportive intervention – the third party intervenes at any stage to support one of the parties.

Request for Joinder

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 that 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 join 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 will 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.

Announcement of the Dispute

A party with 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) and consequences. A third party, to whom the dispute is announced, is entitled to participate in the trial by filing an intervention. If a third party does not participate in a trial, even though the dispute was announced to them before the hearing, they are not entitled to file a third-party appeal against the judgment.

The deadlines for filing 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 might 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 from the filing of the petition, depending on the court’s caseload. 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 proving an allegation in a claim, counterclaim, objection or counter-objection) – lies on the party invoking the factual allegation in question. Therefore, each respective party is obliged to produce both documents and witnesses ‒ either in court or through an affidavit ‒ in order to prove its arguments.

The initiative on which means of proof may be produced lies mainly with the parties, although 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, whereas 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 prior to their first written submission of pleadings, with very limited option 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 the third party possesses evidence that 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 only invoke evidence where it:

• favours that party’s own position; and/or
• rebuts possible counter-arguments and evidence produced against that party.

Additionally, once produced by either party, evidence 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 on the initiative of the parties. Although litigants have a duty of truthfulness and good faith, there is very limited disclosure (apart from 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 of proving the facts necessary to support their claims or defences and must 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, witnesses and experts are not examined orally during the hearing, with the exception of special proceedings, voluntary procedures or interim measures proceedings (see 7.1 Trial Proceedings). Written testimonies are provided prior to the hearing instead. Each party has the right to submit up to three affidavits with the pleadings, and two affidavits with the additional pleadings, in order to rebut the other party’s allegations in the pleadings.

A witness statement is sworn by a witness before a notary public or before an attorney at law.

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 Lawyers’ Code, which regulates the legal profession, the Lawyers’ Code of Conduct, the Criminal Code, the Code of Criminal Procedure and the GCCP.

Greek law provides that lawyers must keep all information communicated by their clients and all information obtained when dealing with a case confidential. 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, should certain conditions be met, exceptions from legal privilege are provided for by Law 4557/2018, which implemented Directive (EU) 2015/849 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing.

All lawyers are members of a local Bar Association and subject to the same professional ethics rules and disciplinary action with regard to legal privilege, irrespective of whether they are “in-house” or “independent” counsel.

Each litigant has to disclose all supporting documentation with their pleadings and may request that the court orders the disclosure of documentation in the possession of the counterparty or a third party, unless there is a compelling reason justifying the non-disclosure. Compelling reasons justifying non-disclosure could be established when documents relate to professional secrecy (such as attorney-client privilege), banking secrecy, tax data and confidentiality of communication including email and other documents which include sensitive personal data, and especially when they are not closely connected with the matter at issue.

Injunctive relief may be in the form of:

• a provisional freezing of assets;
• an order to temporarily cease and desist from an action or behaviour; or
• an order for specific performance (in exceptional cases).

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, owing 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 the petition. The court has the authority to issue such relief on the same day and following a very brief hearing, which may even be conducted ex parte (ie, in the absence of the defendant). This immediate injunctive relief is very limited and remains in force either 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 may be 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 in certain circumstances, such as:

• when a party requests, as a form of injunctive relief, that a financial institution (third party) seizes any of the debtor’s assets 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 following mechanisms: ordinary proceedings and special proceedings mechanisms.

Ordinary Proceedings

Under ordinary proceedings rules, which have been amended to introduce a fast-track system, all evidence (including witness statements) must be 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 filed their written pleadings and evidence in a timely manner, the parties are considered properly present. Law 4842/2021 has introduced further changes to ordinary proceedings, providing the parties with the option to file additional written pleadings/counter pleadings prior to the hearing.

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. By means of Law 4842/2021, provisions for ordinary proceedings have been embedded within the provisions for small claims’ proceedings, such as the quick setting of the date of the hearing ‒ and limiting the options for calling off or postponing that hearing – in order to speed up the small claims’ procedure.

Special Proceedings

Special proceedings include matrimonial disputes, property disputes arising from 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. In principle, other than the filing and servicing of the action, all procedures take place during the hearing in which the parties submit their pleadings and present the appropriate evidence.

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 rules for ordinary proceedings, all evidence (including witness statements) is provided in advance of the hearing in writing. In principle, the court does not perform oral examinations 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 of proving the facts that support its own claim or defence. Only facts that have a material bearing on the outcome of the case may be presented as 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 as 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 that are known to be true beyond any doubt are taken into consideration by the court without proof. The same rule applies to facts that are already known to the court from a previous case tried by the same court, as well as to facts that are common knowledge. Evidence submitted by one party is also taken into account when proving 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 when expert scientific or technical knowledge is required.

The court is obliged to order expert evidence if it 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 from a particular list of experts that 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; however, deliberations over the judgment are made in secret. The judge in charge of the hearing may determine the number of persons present in the courtroom 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 involved in the dispute and their attorneys – or 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 with 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, particularly at the inquiry level. During the discussions, 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, rather, at a later stage when the judgment is issued and published. In criminal cases, the court issues its judgment immediately.

Ordinary Proceedings

Once the lawsuit has been filed, the parties have 90 days (or 120 days, in the case of foreign defendants or those of unknown residence) to submit written pleadings and supporting documentation. This 90- or 120-day period commences as soon as the procedural deadline to serve the lawsuit to the other party expires. The procedural deadline for serving the lawsuit to the other party is 30 days (or 60 days, in the case of foreign defendants or those of unknown residence).

The parties then have a 15-day deadline to submit their rebuttals to the opposing party’s arguments. The court will then set a hearing date and the final decision should be issued within eight months of the hearing; however, the latter deadline depends on the court’s caseload. Should any allegations arise once the initial written pleadings and supporting documentation have been submitted, the parties have the option to file additional written pleadings and counter pleadings twenty (20) days and ten (10) days prior to the hearing respectively.

The procedural deadline to file pleadings and rebuttals may be extended by means of a judgment, on the basis of an agreement between the parties and if the judge is also in agreement after assessing the circumstances pertaining to the requested extension (article 148 GCCP).

Special Proceedings

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 in which the parties submit their pleadings and evidentiary material. The parties may submit their rebuttals within five working days of the hearing.

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 during 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. This requires the issuance of a judgment in order to be vested with an enforceable title.

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

In court settlements, court transcripts – including the settlement of a case (albeit not court decisions) – constitute a judicial document that can be enforced.

In out-of-court settlements, if the parties have an interest in vesting the settlement with exequatur in order to enforce it later, 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 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 do not have the authority to award any amount beyond that threshold or any special damages. Courts may award pecuniary relief in the form of compensation for 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 legal system does not recognise punitive damages and, if damages of such nature have been agreed, the court mitigates them to a fair and reasonable extent.

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 (“litigation interest”) accruing from the date that:

• the lawsuit was served; or
• the payment order for the debt 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 date a final judgment awarding damages with interest is published, 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 who is entitled to do so. Such individual gives the corresponding order to a bailiff and specifies the way in which the order will be enforced ‒ and, if possible, on which items ‒ in the official copy (apografo). In cases of seizure, a notary is designated where the seizure will take place.

Enforcement proceedings have been expedited via:

• the simplification of execution proceedings (Law 4335/2015);
• the consolidation of the judicial review procedure (Law 4472/2017); and
• the introduction of electronic auctions (Law 4512/2018).

The following are among the special laws that, while taking into account the nature and specific features of the creditor, mandate specific provisions for the enforcement of domestic judgments:

• the Code of Collecting Public Revenue (Legislative Decree 356/1974), which applies in cases where the Greek state is the creditor/claimant; and
• the Legislative Decree of 17 July 1923, which applies when the creditor/claimant is either:
1. a bank operating in Greece; or
2. a corporation (whether a Greek société anonyme or a foreign company) that has acquired a special licence from the Greek state.

The procedures for the 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. 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 such 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 Greek court’s decision on 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 the appellate courts.

Single-member court of first instance judgments are contested in the multi-member court of first instance or the single-member court of appeal depending on the nature and value of the dispute in question. Multi-member court of first instance judgments are contested in the three-member court of appeal. Judgments issued by the single-member courts of first instance for minor disputes (eg, claims and rights on movable property with a value not exceeding EUR5,000) are irrevocable and therefore cannot be contested before a higher court.

According to the transitional provisions of Law 5134/2024 (article 51), appeals against first instance judgments, issued after 16 September 2024, on actions heard before small claims courts are under the jurisdiction of the multi-member courts of first instance. Appeals against first instance judgments issued until 15 September 2024 by small claims courts shall be under the jurisdiction of the single-member courts of first instance. Further to these provisions, appeals against first instance judgments of the single-member courts of first instance in non-contentious proceedings are now subject to the jurisdiction of the multi-member courts of first instance.

A cassation appeal 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.

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 either procedural or substantive, or both.

Enforcement of a first instance judgment is suspended during the period in which it is possible to file an appeal, unless the first instance judgment has been declared as temporarily enforceable against the defeated party.

An appeal should be filed within 30 days of the service of first instance judgment to the other party if the party resides in Greece, or within 60 days if the party resides abroad or is of unknown residence.

If the first instance judgment is not served, the appeal can be filed within a two-year period from the date the first instance judgment was published. Once an appeal is filed and a hearing is scheduled, the counterparty has the opportunity to file (and serve) a counter-appeal for ‒ 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 concerns errors of the first instance courts on questions of law and/or fact. A cassation appeal to the Supreme Court may only be made based on 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 will only examine the admissibility and soundness of the grounds that are presented in the appeal, and not the first instance judgment as a whole.

New points, which have not been explored at first instance, cannot be raised at an appeal unless they:

• are raised by any litigant as a defence to the appeal, and the grounds of the claim or joinder is not modified;
• are raised by a person who joined during second instance proceedings yet is a necessary co-litigant of the initial litigant;
• arose after the first instance proceedings;
• are taken into consideration by the court ex officio or can be raised at any stage of the trial;
• were not raised at the time of the pleadings or the supplementary pleadings for reasons that the court considers justifiable (including objections to an abuse of the right to litigate); or
• are proven in writing or through an in-court confession by the counterparty.

The court cannot impose any conditions on granting an appeal.

The appellate court will 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 court 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); and
• any other court expenses, such as:
1. stamp duty;
2. judicial stamp (amounting to 8% or 4% of the amount claimed, depending on the type of the case);
3. translation costs;
4. court bailiff costs; and/or
5. 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 distribute the attorney and court expenses between the parties, if the interpretation of the rules applied was deemed to be particularly difficult. By virtue of an amendment to the GCCP, the court may also distribute the expenses between the parties if ‒ following assessment of the circumstances of the case ‒ there was justifiable doubt concerning the outcome of the case.

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, comprise:

• stamp duties;
• judicial revenue stamp duty;
• attorneys’ minimum fees set by the 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 remains at the court’s discretion whether to award expenses in whole or in part, and to order the defeated party to pay these expenses. It should be noted that Greek courts usually award costs that are substantially lower than those actually incurred.

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

Sophisticated commercial parties are showing a growing preference for resolving disputes through alternative adjudicating bodies. Mediation was not popular; however, Law 4640/2019 aimed to establish an attempt at mediation as a prerequisite to resorting to the courts.

Law 4512/2018 aimed to relieve courts of the overwhelming majority of cases by incorporating Directive 2008/52/EC for mandatory mediation in civil and commercial matters. However, its enactment generated a debate among local practitioners that resulted in the suspension of 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 Greek legislation with the provisions of Directive 2008/52/EC, aims to expedite legal proceedings that offer a fast-track enforceable title to parties successfully participating in the mediation procedure. (See also 3.1 Rules on Pre-action Conduct.)

According to the latest Central Mediation Committee’s annual report in relation to 2023 on Mandatory Initial Mediation Session cases:

• Out of a sum of 1,126 cases (where a Mandatory Initial Mediation Session was held) 11.08% of cases advanced to further mediation and 7.73% of cases ended in reaching an agreement.
• On the type of cases, which presented the highest rate in continuing with the mediation, (i) Inheritance cases were the most likely to proceed with mediation at 18.93%, (ii) then property cases at 16.97%, (iii) family cases at 13.86% and (iv) commercial cases at 11.01%.
• On the final outcome and settlement success, the type of cases differs, since (i) property and family disputes had the highest success, with rates of 11.50% and 11.43%, respectively, (ii) inheritance disputes had a success at 9.29% and (iii) and commercial disputes at 7.37%.
• With respect to voluntary mediation, 2023 saw a notable increase of around 25%, with 1,397 cases recorded against 1,117 in 2022. Out of these, the 83.39% of the cases was led to an agreement. Family cases represented the majority of voluntary mediation cases in 2023 accounting for 50.11%.

Institutions in Greece offering and promoting ADR, include:

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

The framework of the new mediation regime has established the Central Mediation Committee, which also monitors mediation procedures and provides registration for mediators and for mediator certification entities.

Parties involved in international commercial arbitration proceedings in Greece can apply new Law 5016/2023 (IAL), which aims to modernise the Greek law of international arbitration with the amendments of the 2006 UNCITRAL Model Law and the latest international tendency regarding arbitration both in theory and practice. 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. The enactment of IAL (and its amendments issued by Law 5026/2023) replaced Law 2735/1999 which still applies in arbitration commenced before 4 February 2023, when IAL entered into force in order to regulate international commercial arbitration in Greece. Domestic arbitrations or arbitrations of a non-commercial nature are regulated by the provisions of the GCCP (Articles 867–903) where IAL is not applicable. The GCCP may also apply directly or indirectly to international commercial arbitration if an issue is not specifically governed by IAL and vice versa.

Arbitration is considered to be “international” if:

• the parties’ registered seats are in different countries when they enter into the arbitration agreement; or
• one of the following places is situated outside the state in which the parties have their registered seat:
1. the place of arbitration if determined in, or pursuant to, the arbitration agreement; and
2. any place where a substantial part of the obligations of the commercial relationship is to be performed or the place with which the subject matter of the dispute is most closely connected; or
• the parties have explicitly agreed that IAL applies to that arbitration.

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 (the “New York Convention”) pursuant to Legislative Decree No 4220/1961 (and IAL provides for this). The New York 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 that it applies exclusively to:

• arbitral awards issued in another contracting state; and
• awards issued on disputes of a commercial nature.

As per the GCCP on domestic arbitration, any private legal dispute is arbitrable in principle if its subject matter can be freely resolved between the parties. Any type of dispute failing to fulfil these prerequisites is not arbitrable.

Non-arbitrable include disputes include those that:

• relate to the personal status of individuals (eg, marital disputes and disputes between parents and children);
• fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of other adjudication bodies (eg, cases concerning the violation of competition rules will be heard by the Competition Commission);
• arise from collective bargaining agreements; or
• arise between:
1. employers and employees;
2. professionals and small and medium-sized entities (or between these entities and their clients) regarding work performed or goods manufactured; and
3. 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 are not arbitrable if they relate to matters that cannot be freely resolved between the parties (eg, registering a trade mark or patent); however, they are in other respects (eg, claims for compensation).

There are also special statutory provisions, especially in investment incentive laws, which allow matters that otherwise cannot be freely resolved between the parties to be submitted to arbitration – for example, tax disputes between the state and the investor.

IAL establishes the general principle that all disputes are in principle arbitrable, unless prohibited by law. This provision therefore creates a presumption of arbitrability for all disputes, unless applicable law explicitly excludes a particular dispute, or category of disputes, from being subject to arbitration.

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

IAL introduces a new ground for the annulment of an arbitral award in cases where there is a ground for reconsideration under Article 544(6) and (10) GCCP (ie, in cases of procedural fraud and corruption on the part of arbitrators). In such cases, the application for the annulment must be filed within the time limit prescribed by Article 545(3) GCCP.

It is also noted that according to IAL, a party may not rely upon its own actions or omissions to have an award set aside. The parties can waive their rights to seek set aside at any time, in which case set-aside grounds may serve as grounds to resist enforcement or recognition.

An arbitral award is not subject to appeal. However, in domestic arbitration cases, the parties can foresee their right to challenge the arbitral award before a different arbitral tribunal in the arbitration agreement – 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 – upon its filing in the single-member court of first instance (as per the GCCP) and publication (as per IAL). 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.

As regards the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards, IAL provides that the arbitral award is enforceable upon its issuance – along with three new provisions. The first provision refers to the provisions of the GCCP on the res judicata effect of court judgments. According to the second provision, the res judicata effect of an arbitral award also covers preliminary questions determined by the arbitral tribunal and covered by the arbitration agreement. The third provision provides that an arbitral award is only effective against third parties if such parties are bound by the arbitration agreement. In addition, despite the commerciality and reciprocity reservations mentioned above in 13.1 Laws Regarding the Conduct of Arbitration, according to IAL, the provisions of the New York Convention are applicable to the recognition and enforcement of all foreign awards, irrespective of whether the state of origin is a contracting state to the New York Convention and of whether the subject matter of the arbitration pertains to a commercial dispute. The reservations made by Greece do not seem to restrict the scope of application of the New York Convention.

The most recent reform of the GCCP has been through the enactment of Law 4842/2021, aiming to accelerate the smooth functioning of civil litigation proceedings by applying modern technologies and IAL which provides for the submission of documents in electronic form in ordinary proceedings and also redefines the legal framework governing international commercial arbitration.

Main areas of growth for commercial disputes in Greece have been influenced by several factors, including economic conditions, regulatory changes, and increasing international trade. Some key growth areas for commercial disputes are:

• Banking and Financial Disputes
• Energy Sector Disputes
• Construction and Real Estate
• Commercial Contracts and International Trade
• Technology and Data Protection
• Privatisation and Public Procurement
• Taxation and Regulatory Disputes
• Shipping and Maritime Disputes