There are specific rules and principles governing the procedure for the exercising of remedies (and any subsequent appeals) against decisions issued by the administration.

Specifically, in the Greek procedural system of administrative justice, a rule of one-time exercise of remedies and appeals applies. In addition, administrative proceedings are governed by the principles:

• of the free disposition of the subject matter of the court proceedings;
• of a court ruling within the limits of the application;
• that the court proceedings may be terminated on the motion of the party lodging the appeal, whereby the court must ensure the proper conduct of the proceedings;
• of interrogation;
• of concentration;
• of public disclosure;
• of written preliminary proceedings;
• of oral argument in the proceedings;
• of the statement of the grounds for court decisions;
• of equality of the opposing parties;
• that both parties must be heard; and
• of the bona fide conduct of proceedings.

However, in addition to these general principles, there are also special rules governing the judicial review of administrative decisions, which relate to distinguishing administrative disputes in terms of disputes for the annulment of administrative decisions and disputes of substance challenging administrative decisions on their merits.

In particular, according to the approach that corresponds most closely with the provisions of Greek law, the main criterion for distinguishing administrative disputes into annulment and substantive disputes are:

• the authority of the court to adjudicate the dispute submitted before it (ie, the extent of the review of the facts of the dispute which the court may or is obliged to undertake); and
• the consequences of its decision.

In annulment proceedings, the court may annul the contested act/decision taken by the administration in whole or in part, while in substantive proceedings the court may annul or even modify the contested act/decision.

As a result of this distinction, there are two procedural systems, in the sense that the adjudication of annulment proceedings and substantive proceedings are governed by separate procedural provisions.

According to Article 94(1) of the Constitution, administrative disputes are referred to the Council of State and the ordinary administrative courts, as provided by law, without prejudice to the powers of the Court of Audit.

As a general rule, annulment disputes are heard by the Council of State. However, by express constitutional provision, certain categories of cases that fall under the competence of the Council of State to annul may, depending on their nature or importance, be referred to the ordinary administrative courts, by law. The Council of State will hear cases at second instance, as provided by law.

Substantive disputes will be assigned to the ordinary administrative courts (Administrative Courts of First Instance and Administrative Courts of Appeal), except for substantive administrative disputes, which the Constitution itself or the law assigns to the Council of State or other courts.

In order for an administrative act to be admissibly and legally challengeable, it must constitute an enforceable administrative act. Enforceability refers to the binding nature of the act and does not require a prior court decision. By contrast, non‑enforceable acts are not susceptible to legal challenge. These include internal administrative acts, informational documents, recommendations, opinions, preparatory acts, confirmatory measures of the administration, as well as interim acts that merely lead to the adoption of a final enforceable administrative act. Moreover, formal laws cannot be challenged directly in court. Instead, their constitutionality is reviewed incidentally in the course of judicial proceedings. Finally, governmental acts (ie, acts relating to the administration of political power or the operation of government) are not subject to judicial challenge.

In line with Article 95(1)(a) of the Constitution and Article 45(1) of Presidential Decree No 18/1989, an application for annulment may be brought against acts of administrative authorities and legal persons governed by public law. By providing for the annulment of acts of administrative authorities through an application for annulment, the Constitution excludes the possibility of bringing such an application against legislative acts and, in particular, against provisions of a formal law of a regulatory nature. Consequently, in the Greek procedural system, no one may directly challenge a formal law or primary legislation. Furthermore, the Greek legal system does not provide for a Constitutional Court.

However, the constitutionality of a provision of a formal law (ie, primary legislation) may be reviewed incidentally. This judicial authority derives from an express constitutional provision and requires courts not to apply a law whose content is contrary to the Constitution. In Greece, the review of the constitutionality of laws is an exclusive power of the courts and is granted directly by the Constitution. Pursuant to Article 93(4) of the Constitution, all courts have authority to review the constitutionality of laws. This review is diffuse, as it is carried out by all courts irrespective of their level or jurisdiction. It is incidental, since it takes place in the context of a specific case and not in the abstract. It is also concrete because it concerns only the legal provision necessary for deciding the case, and a posteriori since it is exercised after the law has been enacted and has entered into force. If, in the context of incidental constitutional review, a law is found to be unconstitutional, it is not applied in the specific case. This inapplicability does not amount to its abolition, as court decisions do not constitute a source of law under Greek law. Accordingly, the court does not annul the law but merely refrains from applying it in the particular case, with effects limited to the parties involved. For this reason, the review is also declaratory, as it does not produce res judicata.

Unlike primary legislation, it is possible to challenge secondary legislation before the administrative courts. In particular, ministerial decisions, joint ministerial decisions and Presidential Decrees or other regulatory administrative acts may be challenged by means of an application for annulment before the ordinary administrative courts or the Council of State.

The grounds on which these acts may be annulled by the courts are:

• the lack of competence of the authority which issued the act;
• violation of an essential procedural requirement;
• violation of an essential provision of law; and
• misuse of powers.

In addition to administrative acts that create impersonal rules of law (ie, regulatory administrative acts), individual administrative acts may also be challenged before the court. Individual administrative acts are those containing an individual rule or a regulation that is completely individualised and specific, addressed to a particular person, and referring to details that are specific to that person.

However, as a general rule, the legality of individual administrative acts is not subject to incidental review. Once the time limit for a direct challenge has expired, it is no longer possible to review their legality incidentally.

The period for bringing a legal challenge against individual administrative acts begins at the time of their notification or from the moment of full knowledge thereof. For acts that are, by law, subject to public disclosure, the period begins, for the addressees, from notification or full knowledge, and for third parties, from the date of disclosure.

The contractual activities of the administration are reflected in the conclusion of private law, public law or administrative contracts.

In order for a contract to be classified as an administrative contract, the following conditions must be satisfied.

• First, at least one of the parties to the contract must be the state or a legal entity governed by public law that exercises public authority.
• Second, the subject matter of the contract must relate to the exercise of a public service or serve a public purpose.
• Third, the drafting and performance of the contract must be governed, at least in part, by rules of administrative law, or the contract must contain terms that create an exceptional contractual regime in favour of the state or the public law entity. This includes, in particular, the possibility for the state or public law entity to intervene unilaterally in the contract and to impose penalties.

If none of these three elements is satisfied, the contract does not constitute an administrative contract but instead qualifies as a private law contract. In light of Article 94(3) of the Constitution and Article 1(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, private law contracts concluded between the state, acting as fiscus, and individuals may be challenged before the ordinary civil courts.

Only enforceable administrative acts are admissible and can be legally challenged before the administrative courts.

In contrast, non-enforceable administrative acts, which do not give rise to legal effects, may not be challenged in the administrative courts. Typical examples of non-enforceable administrative acts include, inter alia:

• internal administrative acts;
• information documents;
• recommendations;
• simple opinions;
• interpretative circulars;
• confirmatory administrative measures; and
• interim acts that result in the adoption of a final enforceable administrative act.

It is possible to take legal action in the courts against a person or entity engaged in commercial or non-governmental activities. However, this is only possible where:

• the person or body is not acting under public authority; and
• the act or activities do not serve a public purpose and are not related to the exercise of a public service.

The dispute in question will be brought before the civil courts and not before the administrative courts.

The competence of the ordinary administrative courts and the Council of State to hear administrative disputes is enshrined in Article 94(1) of the Constitution. The jurisdiction of administrative courts cannot therefore be abolished by law or by contract.

Both express and implied agreements by the opposing parties to extend the jurisdiction of the court, whether in terms of subject matter or locality, are prohibited. However, Article 94(3) of the Constitution provides that, in special cases and in order to achieve the uniform application of legislation, it may be possible by law to entrust the hearing of private disputes to administrative courts, or the hearing of substantive administrative disputes to civil courts.

One of the prerequisites for an admissible challenge to acts or decisions taken by the administration is that the claimant has a legitimate interest.

A legitimate interest is an interest that:

• is not contrary to law – a conflict with the law occurs, in particular, where the interest invoked is contrary to a prohibitive provision of law or to the provisions governing good faith and the abuse of procedural rights;
• is recognised by the court as deserving legal protection – an interest deserving legal protection includes an interest based on a right, as well as an interest in ensuring that the administration respects the limits of its discretionary powers; neither a simple expectation of financial benefits nor a general interest in political or social life constitutes an interest deserving legal protection; and
• is in need of legal protection.

The legitimate interest must meet the following criteria.

• It must be directly attributable to the claimant and not to a third party.
• It must be linked to the claimant by a special connection, arising from the claimant’s relationship to the legal and or factual situation adversely affected by the challenged act or omission.
• It must exist cumulatively at the following times:
1. at the time of the issuance of the administrative act;
2. at the time the appeal is lodged; and
3. at the time of the last hearing of the appeal.

If the court finds that the appeal has been brought without a legitimate interest, it will dismiss the appeal as inadmissible.

Under the procedural rules for administrative disputes, an individual or a legal person affected by an administrative act or whose legal interests, even if non-monetary, are affected by it, may bring an appeal.

Within the meaning of the law, the legitimate interest of a legal person in challenging an administrative act is to be assessed on a case-by-case basis, particularly in light of the purpose of the legal person and the content of the act.

In the case of NGOs dealing with human rights, the case law of the Council of State has not clarified the concept of a legitimate interest in the intervention of associations or NGOs in annulment proceedings.

However, the case law of the Council of State is completely different in environmental annulment proceedings. The Council of State has extended the legitimate interest of environmental NGOs in applying for annulment or intervention if the protection of the environment is the main or even secondary reason for the existence and operation of the NGOs.

A third natural or legal person may participate in pending proceedings by way of intervention. The type of intervention and the procedure to be followed depend on the nature of the case, that is, whether it concerns a dispute on the merits or a dispute for annulment.

In annulment proceedings, additional intervention is provided for only in favour of the state. In other words, intervention is permitted solely for the purpose of maintaining the validity of the administrative act being challenged. The intervention must be made, under penalty of inadmissibility, by means of a separate pleading lodged within the specific time limit laid down in Presidential Decree 18/1989 and notified to the parties by the intervener.

In substantive proceedings, there are two types of third-party intervention:

• main intervention; and
• additional intervention.

In a main intervention, the third party claims, in whole or in part, the subject matter of the pending proceedings arising from an application or action. By contrast, in an additional intervention, the third party intervenes in support of a party in whose favour they have an interest in the outcome of the proceedings. Additional intervention is permitted both in favour of the applicant or appellant and in favour of maintaining the validity of the administrative act.

In all cases, intervention must be made, under penalty of inadmissibility, by means of a separate pleading lodged within the specific time limit laid down in the Code of Administrative Procedure (CAP). The pleading must be notified by the intervener to the opposing parties.

In any form of intervention, the intervener must demonstrate a legitimate interest. Special forms of intervention are also provided for under the law, including the following.

• First, Article 1 of Law 2479/1997 provides that, in proceedings before the Supreme Special Court, the Plenary of the Council of State, the Plenary of the Supreme Court, or the Plenary of the Court of Audit, which raise the question of whether a provision of a formal law is consistent with the Constitution, natural or legal persons, as well as associations of persons, may intervene. This is permitted where they have a legitimate interest in the resolution of the constitutional question and the same question is pending before another court or judicial body of the same judicial branch in proceedings in which they are opposing parties.
• Second, Article 1 of Law 3900/2010 provides for additional intervention in model or pilot proceedings. In this case, the intervener must be a party to pending proceedings in which the same issue is raised, as determined in the act of the Commission that initiated the proceedings under Law 3900/2010.

By lawfully intervening, the third party becomes a party to the pending proceedings.

In addition to these forms of participation by third parties, joint legal remedies, also referred to as concurrence, may be exercised in accordance with the specific provisions of the law.

Third parties in administrative proceedings can be classified as follows.

• The third party opposing the caveator – this category includes a third party who is adversely affected by a decision issued in court proceedings involving other parties. If such a person has not filed an intervention, despite having a legitimate interest in doing so, they may submit a third-party application requesting that the adverse decision be set aside and that the case be reheard.
• Third parties involved in the evidentiary procedure – the conduct of evidentiary proceedings may require the assistance of third persons, such as witnesses and experts. Their status as third parties, in relation to the opposing parties, is decisive for assessing the credibility of the evidence they provide.
• Third parties placed in the position of an original party to the proceedings – certain third parties may, by virtue of their status, assume the position of an original party to the proceedings. This group includes universal or special successors of natural persons, the administrator of a bankrupt party, and insurers in cases of insurance substitution. In the case of legal persons, it also includes situations arising from corporate restructuring, such as merger, absorption, conversion, dissolution, or transfer. It is also common for another legal person to replace the defendant as a result of organisational changes in management or the transfer of relevant powers.

In administrative law, the principle of interrogation generally applies. Under this principle, the court takes all measures it considers appropriate to establish the truth. These measures include, inter alia, taking evidence on its own initiative and drawing conclusions that are not necessarily proposed by the parties.

However, the principle of interrogation is linked to the principle of the free disposal of the subject matter of the proceedings. This link means that the commencement, substance, scope, and conclusion of administrative proceedings depend on the will of the parties rather than on the court’s own initiative. The principle of interrogation is also connected to the principle that the court must decide within the limits of the application, in the sense that it may not aggravate the situation of the parties.

In light of the fact that administrative proceedings are governed by the investigative system, and without prejudice to the free disposal of the subject matter of the proceedings or the limits of review set by the party in their appeal, specific procedural rules, namely legal rules of evidence, are in place to ensure that the court has all relevant information at its disposal.

In particular, the party, as an individual, is obliged to submit all evidence supporting their claims within a prescribed time limit before the hearing of the case.

Similarly, the administration is required to transmit to the court a report setting out its position and the complete case file within three months from the service of the appeal in annulment proceedings, or at least 30 days before the hearing in substantive proceedings.

The law provides for specific means of evidence that may be relied upon by the parties to substantiate their claims, namely:

• the inspection;
• expert evidence;
• documents;
• the confession of the opposing party, where the opposing party is an individual;
• the statements of the parties;
• witnesses; and
• court documents.

One of the means of evidence used in administrative proceedings is witness testimony. The court may order the examination of witnesses either on its own initiative or at the request of a party. A proposal to examine witnesses may be submitted in writing at the preliminary hearing or made orally in court.

If the proposal is made orally in court, the examination of a witness may be requested at the hearing, provided that all parties are present and do not object. A witness may be questioned not only by the court but also by the parties, subject to the permission of the person conducting the examination.

Each witness is generally examined separately from the others. A cross-examination involving another witness or a party may be conducted only before the court or the Judge‑Rapporteur.

In principle, a party whose interests are affected is not obliged to follow any preliminary procedures before bringing a case before the courts. However, where the law expressly provides for preliminary proceedings, such as the filing of an administrative appeal, those procedures must be followed.

If the prescribed procedure for an administrative appeal is not followed, any appeal lodged is deemed inadmissible and will not be examined by the court. Where the law provides for an administrative appeal, an appeal or application for annulment is admissible only against the act or omission relating to the outcome of that appeal.

In particular, in the field of public procurement, for contracts exceeding certain monetary thresholds, a special appeal procedure before the Hellenic Single Public Procurement Authority (HSPPA) is provided for. Under this procedure, the tenderer is obliged to lodge an appeal before addressing the courts. Any direct appeal to the courts without first following this procedure is considered inadmissible.

See 9.1 Preliminary Requirements.

In administrative proceedings, specific time limits apply to appeals. In substantive proceedings, an appeal against an administrative act or omission may be brought within 60 days of either notification or full knowledge of the act, or within 60 days of the omission.

In tax and customs disputes, an appeal must be lodged within 30 days of notification or full knowledge of the act.

In annulment proceedings, an application for annulment must be lodged within 60 days of notification or full knowledge of the act, or within 60 days of the omission.

These time limits are extended where the party concerned is domiciled abroad.

In all cases, an action must be brought before the limitation period applicable to the claim expires, in accordance with the relevant provisions of law.

The information a claimant is required to provide in order to initiate a claim is set out in the opening statement of the pleading filed with the court.

In particular, the statement of claim must specify its nature (ie, whether it concerns an appeal or a remedy), and must identify the relevant type. The statement must also indicate the time and place at which it was drawn up, as well as the particulars of the applicant, including the applicant’s VAT number, and the opposing party. In addition to these general particulars, each pleading must state the following:

• the authority which issued the act or omitted to issue it;
• the act or omission challenged; and
• the grounds on which the claimant bases the claim.

Evidence in support of the claimant’s allegations does not need to be submitted with the opening statement of claim at the time the pleading or intervention is filed. However, such evidence must be submitted to the court within a prescribed time limit before the hearing of the case.

The party bringing the appeal is required to set out the legal and factual pleas in law, together with the main arguments supporting the claim, at an early stage, namely in the introductory pleading of the appeal. The appellant may also submit additional grounds for annulment of the contested act or omission, provided that these are filed with the court within the period prescribed for that purpose.

In actions for annulment and in substantive proceedings, each party may submit pleadings either in support of its own claims or in rebuttal of the arguments advanced by the administration.

Each party bears the burden of proving the facts on which it relies in support of its claims.

The evidence intended to substantiate the claimant’s allegations is not required to be submitted at the time of filing the appeal or remedy. However, such evidence must be lodged with the court within a specified period before the hearing takes place.

The administration is required to place a file before the court containing its opinion report. This administrative file includes both public and private documents relating to the case that are held by the public authority.

The administration must transmit its opinion report and the complete administrative file to the court within three months of service of the appeal in annulment proceedings, or at least 30 days before the hearing in substantive proceedings.

In order for the administrative court to proceed to a review of the merits of a case, it must first examine whether the appeal is admissible. It does so by assessing whether the conditions of admissibility are fulfilled. In particular, it examines the following:

• the capacity of the party;
• the capacity to bring legal proceedings;
• the nature of the contested act;
• the existence of a legitimate interest on the part of the person bringing the appeal;
• observance, if applicable, of the procedure for administrative appeals, where such a procedure is provided for by law;
• the timely lodging of the appeal; and
• the payment of any administrative or court fee.

In particular, where the law provides for the observance of an administrative appeal procedure, the party must comply with that procedure before bringing an action before the court. Failure to do so will render any appeal lodged inadmissible, and it will not be considered by the court. The purpose of observing the administrative appeals procedure is to assist the work of the courts, in that cases are brought before them with their factual and legal aspects clarified, and to ensure the protection of the rights of administered persons.

In accordance with the provisions of Law 4055/2012, where a case has not been heard for a period exceeding 24 months from the filing of the initial statement of claim, any party may apply to the court for the proceedings to be expedited. The sole criterion for submitting an application for expedition is that the case has remained unheard for more than 24 months from the commencement of the proceedings. In other words, it is not necessary to advance substantive reasons in order to justify such a request.

Furthermore, Articles 211 et seq of the Code of Administrative Procedure provide for the institution of provisional adjudication of a claim. Under these provisions, where an action has been brought to set aside a claim arising out of pecuniary damages, the court may, at the request of the plaintiff, provisionally award part of the claim that is subject to the action. If the application is granted, the court may make a provisional award of part of the claim, provided that it does not exceed half of the amount in respect of which the action was brought.

In the case of natural persons, the claimant’s inability to meet their own immediate living requirements and those of their family, or their particular difficulty in doing so, may constitute grounds for provisional enforcement of a claim. In the case of legal persons, such grounds may arise where there is a risk of serious financial distress.

The extent of the court’s jurisdiction depends on the nature of the dispute under examination – that is, whether it constitutes an administrative substantive dispute or an administrative annulment dispute.

In particular, an application for annulment seeks the total or partial annulment, rather than the modification, of an administrative act. The court hearing an action for annulment therefore reviews the act solely in terms of its legality and not its substance. In annulment proceedings, the court may annul the administrative act in whole or in part.

By contrast, in substantive disputes, the court may either annul the administrative act in whole or in part or modify it.

This distinction is also relevant in the context of the admission of an appeal, as the court may reject an appeal lodged in either type of dispute.

The Greek Constitution is written and rigid, and it has supremacy over ordinary legislation. While the review of the constitutionality of formal laws is always incidental, the review of the constitutionality of substantive laws, particularly in relation to regulatory acts, is not always conducted through incidental review. The review of regulatory acts by the Council of State includes, among other issues, the examination of a “violation of the law”.

This concept refers to the violation of legal rules deriving from any source of administrative law, including rules that derive directly from the Constitution, as well as from European Union law or international law. Consequently, especially in cases where regulatory acts are directly challenged before the Council of State, the annulment of a substantive law may be sought on the basis of its unconstitutionality.

When a regulatory administrative act is challenged through an application for annulment directly before the Council of State and arguments of unconstitutionality are raised, those arguments may concern the unconstitutionality of its legal basis, namely the authorising statutory provision. In such cases, the constitutionality of the authorising formal law is examined incidentally in the context of the challenge to the regulatory act. In other words, there is no direct constitutional review.

One of the grounds for the annulment of administrative acts is the violation of an essential procedural requirement.

Administrative procedure is defined as the set of administrative actions aimed at checking the legal requirements, preparing and issuing an administrative act. All rules relating to the administrative procedure as defined above in the preamble to the adoption of an administrative act may be characterised as formal procedural rules or “types of procedure for the adoption of an administrative act”.

The violation of any procedural rule constitutes a breach of a rule of law and should, in principle, lead to the annulment of the act. However, for administrative efficiency reasons, Greek administrative law considers, exceptionally, that the infringement of minor procedural rules does not constitute grounds for the annulment of the act adopted.

It is up to the court to assess whether or not the procedural rule is essential.

The infringement of a provision of law in substance constitutes a further ground for annulment. According to legal doctrine, such an infringement includes an incorrect substantive assessment of the existence or non-existence of facts forming the basis for annulment in administrative substantive disputes.

However, as consistently held in case law, the administration’s substantive assessment of the facts that constitute the legal requirements for the adoption of an administrative act is not subject to review in annulment proceedings.

The administration may exercise its authority either on a binding basis or on a discretionary basis. Binding authority arises where the law fully determines whether, how, and when the administration must act. By contrast, discretionary authority is exercised when the rule of law governing the administration’s action grants it the freedom to decide when and what action to take and, in some cases, whether to act at all.

A violation of a substantive provision of law constitutes a ground for annulment. An infringement of a provision of law occurs in the following situations:

• where the administration fails to comply with an express requirement or prohibition contained in a rule of law that establishes a binding power or a discretionary power; or
• where, in the context of a rule conferring discretionary power, the administration acts in a manner contrary to the lessons of common experience and reason, the principle of equality, the principle of good administration, and, in particular, the principle of proportionality.

Furthermore, judicial review of administrative decisions relating to the exercise of discretionary powers is limited to verifying that the administration has not exceeded the extreme legal limits of that discretion.

In any case, in accordance with the principle of legality, the administration must issue decisions in a competent manner, as expressly required by the relevant legislation. Any decision or act adopted without authority constitutes a ground for annulment.

The principle of impartiality of administrative bodies is enshrined in Article 7 of the CAP. Accordingly, administrative bodies, whether unilateral or collective, must provide guarantees of impartial judgment in the exercise of their powers.

Administrative bodies, and in particular the members of collective administrative bodies, fail to provide guarantees of impartial judgment where they have a personal interest in the outcome of a particular case, or where there is a special connection, relationship, or enmity with the persons concerned. A lack of impartiality may also arise where there is a reasonable suspicion of bias, for example where members have already formed an irreversible, that is to say prejudiced, opinion about the case or the person they are required to judge.

Where an administrative act has been adopted in breach of the principle of impartiality, that act may be challenged on that ground. Such a breach falls within the broader category of grounds for annulment and constitutes, in particular, a breach of a substantive provision of law.

From a legal perspective, equality is both a general principle and an individual right. Article 4(1) of the Constitution provides that “Greek citizens are equal before the law”. This provision establishes a legal rule requiring the equal treatment of persons who are in the same or similar circumstances. Equality is not merely formal; it is proportional, meaning that similar cases must be treated alike, while different cases may be treated differently. This understanding has also been affirmed by the settled case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union.

Different treatment is justified where it is based on an objective and reasonable criterion. In particular, such differentiation is permissible when it is related to an objective that is legitimately pursued by the legislation in question, and where the distinction is proportionate to the objective pursued by the contested measure.

In procedural terms, judicial review of compliance with the principle of equality concerns the limits of legislative discretion rather than the fairness of legislative choices. The review focuses on whether there is manifestly unequal treatment of persons in the same or similar circumstances, or the arbitrary assimilation of persons whose circumstances are materially different.

An administrative act or decision adopted in breach of the principle of equal treatment, also referred to as the principle of equality, may be subject to review before the competent court.

The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) was adopted under the auspices of the Council of Europe in 1950 with the aim of protecting human rights and fundamental freedoms. It entered into force on 3 September 1953. In that same year, Greece ratified the ECHR by Law 2329/1953. Historically, however, there was a gap in the effective implementation of the ECHR by Greece. In December 1969, Greece withdrew from the Council of Europe. Following the restoration of democratic legitimacy in 1974, Greece re-entered the Council of Europe and was required to re-ratify the ECHR, which it did through Law Decree 53/19.9.1974.

Given that the ECHR has been ratified by the Greek legislature, any administrative act issued in violation of the relevant provisions of the Convention may be annulled by the courts on the ground that it breaches a substantive rule of law.

Furthermore, any individual, group of individuals, or non-governmental organisation that considers its rights under the ECHR to have been violated by a member state, and that has exhausted all domestic remedies, may bring an application before the European Court of Human Rights. Where the Court finds that a violation of the ECHR has occurred, it has jurisdiction to award fair compensation.

The principle of proportionality is constitutionally protected. In particular, this principle is enshrined in Article 25(1) of the Constitution. The Constitution establishes proportionality as a general limitation on restrictions of fundamental constitutional rights. More specific manifestations of the principle of proportionality include the principle of appropriateness, the principle of necessity and proportionality stricto sensu.

According to the principle of appropriateness, the restriction imposed must be suitable for achieving the result sought. Under the principle of necessity, the restriction must be necessary to achieve the objective pursued. In the strict sense of proportionality, the restriction must not be more onerous than required to achieve the intended result, meaning that the benefits of the restriction must outweigh the damage resulting from it.

On this basis, an act may be challenged for breach of the constitutional principle of proportionality and such a breach may constitute a ground for annulment.

The grounds for annulment and the grounds of appeal are exhaustively listed in the law. They are as follows:

• lack of competence of the institution issuing the act;
• violation of an essential procedural requirement;
• violation of an essential provision of law; and
• misuse of powers.

In the specific case of an action on the merits, additional grounds may be relied upon. Although these grounds may be subsumed under the violation of an essential provision of law, they include:

• an incorrect substantive assessment of the existence or non-existence of facts; and
• misuse of the administration’s discretionary powers.

Non-enforceable administrative acts, which do not give rise to legal effects, cannot be challenged in court. Typical examples of non-enforceable administrative acts include, inter alia:

• internal acts of the administration;
• information documents;
• recommendations;
• simple opinions;
• interpretative circulars;
• confirmatory administrative measures; and
• intermediate acts that lead to the adoption of a final enforceable administrative act.

Furthermore, government acts – namely acts relating to the exercise of political power or the functioning of government – cannot be challenged in court.

See also 2.1 Determining Susceptibility and 3.5 Challenging Decisions Without Legal Effect.

In their pleadings, the parties set out their views on the factual and legal aspects of the case. A pleading may not be used to extend the subject matter of the proceedings, whether in relation to the facts or the law. It may be used solely to develop arguments that have already been raised.

Accordingly, the introduction of new pleas in law and new factual allegations is inadmissible.

The applicable legislation expressly provides for the time limits and the number of pleadings, which vary depending on the nature of the administrative dispute, whether annulment or merits.

In Greek administrative law, it is possible to obtain interim judicial relief. In particular, in both administrative substantive disputes and administrative annulment disputes, an application for suspension may be filed, provided that the applicant invokes irreparable harm resulting from the execution of the contested act and has filed a clearly well-founded appeal or application for annulment, depending on whether the dispute is substantive or concerns annulment.

Even where these conditions are met, the application for suspension may be rejected if the appeal or application for annulment is manifestly inadmissible or unfounded, even if the harm to the applicant resulting from the immediate enforcement of the contested act is irreparable. Rejection may also occur where it is considered that the negative consequences of granting the suspension would outweigh the benefit to the applicant, following a balancing of the harm to the applicant against the interests of third parties and the public interest.

In accordance with the general rule set out in Article 71(1) of the CAP, an action may be brought by any person who has a pecuniary claim against the state or another public body arising from a legal relationship under public law. An action under administrative procedural law is a legal remedy brought before the ordinary administrative courts by which an individual requests that the court award a pecuniary claim or order the payment of a sum of money owed by the state or a public body on the basis of such a legal relationship.

The state is also liable to pay compensation for damage caused to a natural or legal person as a result of:

• the adoption of an unlawful administrative act;
• the unlawful failure to adopt such an act; or
• unlawful material actions or unlawful omissions of material actions by its bodies, where such conduct arises from the organisation and operation of public services and is not connected with the private management of the state and is not attributable to the personal fault of a body acting outside the scope of its functions (Articles 105 and 106 of the Introductory Law to the Civil Code).

If the court finds that a law is contrary to the Constitution, it is declared invalid. This means that the unconstitutional law is not applied by the court in the specific case before it. However, it is not removed from the legal order as a whole. The law continues to apply before all other courts and remains valid insofar as they consider it constitutional.

Exceptionally, a law is abolished when it is declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Special Court, acting under the competence provided in Article 100(1)(f) of the Constitution. In such cases, the declaration of unconstitutionality may be given retroactive effect pursuant to Article 100(4) of the Constitution. As a result, the unconstitutional law is considered legally non-existent retroactively (ex tunc), and not only for the future (ex nunc).

The same principles that apply to the review of the constitutionality of laws also apply to the review of their substantive compatibility with other higher-ranking rules of international and EU law, as well as with laws of increased formal force. Where a national provision is found to be in conflict with EU or international law, or with other laws of increased formal force, courts are obliged not to apply it.

As regards secondary legislation, such as administrative regulations and ministerial decisions, when these are challenged before the court by means of an application for annulment, the court may annul or eliminate them, in whole or in part.

According to Article 95(5) of the Constitution, the administration has an obligation to comply with court decisions. Such compliance constitutes a fundamental element of the principle of legality and of the rule of law. The legal obligation of administrative bodies to comply with judicial decisions derives directly from the basic principle of the rule of law, as well as from the constitutional principle of the separation of functions. This obligation complements both the constitutional enshrinement of the application for annulment as the general remedy against unlawful administrative acts and the judicial legal protection of the administered person guaranteed by Article 20(1)(c) of the Constitution.

The provision of Article 95(5) of the Constitution extends this obligation of compliance to decisions of all courts, irrespective of their jurisdiction. This rule is general and absolute and is not subject to any reservation of law.

Furthermore, a violation of the obligation to comply with judicial decisions gives rise to liability for each body responsible for compliance. Under Law 3068/2002, the competent body for monitoring the administration’s compliance with court decisions is the three-member council of the relevant branch.

In annulment proceedings, where the contested administrative act or decision is found to be illegal in whole or in part, the court annuls the act accordingly, either entirely or partially. The annulment decision has a transformative effect and reshapes the legal relationship by eliminating the contested act with respect to all parties concerned. The operative part of the annulment decision produces effects erga omnes in accordance with Article 50(1) of Presidential Decree 18/1989. By contrast, the remaining elements of the judicial decision, including the reasoning and any order rejecting claims, produce binding effects only between the parties in the form of res judicata.

The same principles apply to substantive proceedings. However, in such cases, the substantive court may annul the administrative act in whole or in part, or alternatively may amend it.

Where the contested act is annulled, the court refers the matter back to the administration so that it may carry out the necessary actions in compliance with the law.

There are mechanisms in place to protect interested parties from the excessive costs of appealing before administrative courts. In particular, the Code of Administrative Procedure enshrines the principle of legal aid, which may be granted to citizens with low incomes when administrative cases are being heard.

At the same time, in annulment disputes, the party exercising a legal remedy may be exempt from the obligation to pay fees and charges if, in the opinion of the court, there are credible indications of poverty.

In substantive disputes, the party may be exempt from the advance payment of court stamp duty and the associated fee where it is demonstrated that making such an advance payment would create a risk of preventing them from meeting their essential needs and those of their family.

In addition, specific limits are imposed on the amount of fees and court stamp duty that an administered person is required to pay to the public authorities, depending on the category of the application they wish to submit or the amount in dispute.

Fees are costs awarded in favour of the state. There are specific limits on the amount of fees, depending on the category of the application that the applicant wishes to file or on the amount of the dispute in question.

Furthermore, in both substantive and annulment disputes, the losing party is ordered to pay the legal costs of the winning party. However, the court, after assessing the circumstances of the case, may exempt the losing party, in whole or in part, from paying those legal costs.

The obligation to pay a fee, as a condition for the admissibility of a legal remedy or appeal by an individual, aims to prevent the use of reckless and unfounded legal remedies and appeals, in the interest of the proper functioning of the courts and the effective administration of justice. For this reason, the fate of the fee (forfeiture, doubling, or return to the payer) depends on the outcome of the proceedings and the general circumstances of the trial. For example, where the court finds that the legal remedy or appeal in question was clearly inadmissible or unfounded, it may order that the fee be multiplied.

In Greek administrative law, appeals may be lodged in both substantive disputes and annulment disputes. Appeals in substantive disputes are governed by Articles 92 et seq of the Code of Administrative Procedure, while appeals in annulment disputes are governed by Presidential Decree 18/1989. The purpose of an appeal is to allow a higher court, composed of more experienced judges, to reassess the case.

Appeals constitute the second and final level of jurisdiction. The court of second instance does not examine the first-instance decision in its entirety but only the points that have an impact on the outcome of the case. It should be noted that a second level of jurisdiction is not guaranteed by the Constitution or by Article 6 of the ECHR. Consequently, the fact that in certain cases there is no right to appeal does not violate the Constitution.

In substantive disputes, an appeal is filed against the decision of the court of first instance, namely the Administrative Court of First Instance, before the second instance court, which is the Administrative Court of Appeal. As a general rule, all final decisions issued by administrative courts of first instance are subject to appeal, unless the law expressly excludes the possibility of appeal. Accordingly, certain decisions are irrevocable, and certain categories of cases are heard by the Administrative Court of Appeal at first and last instance.

In annulment disputes, an appeal is filed before the Council of State in the cases expressly provided for by law.

In substantive disputes, provision is also made for appeals against judgments delivered on appeal, as well as against judgments delivered at first and last instance.

No permission of any kind is required from the court of first instance, which issued the contested decision, in order to file an appeal. The admissibility of the appeal is assessed in line with the legislation. The conditions for the admissibility of the appeal are set out in the CAP for substantive disputes and in Presidential Decree 18/1989 for annulment disputes.

The appeal constitutes the second and final instance of jurisdiction. The second instance court does not review the first instance decision in its entirety but only examines the points on which the decision is affected (transferable effect of the appeal). However, these points can be legal or factual.

The purpose of the appeal is to have the case re-assessed by more experienced judges.

The grounds for appeal are not limited – ie, there is no numerus clausus of the grounds for appeal that may be raised. On the contrary, a ground for appeal may establish any legal or factual error in the contested decision, as well as any failure of the first instance court to investigate ex officio what it was obliged to. On the other hand, an appeal against judgments given on appeal does not constitute a third jurisdictional step because a full review of the case is not allowed, given that the appeal against judgments given on appeal, only examines errors of law.