Greece

Like many other continental jurisdictions, Greece is a civil law jurisdiction, whose legal system draws heavily from Roman law. As a result, most legal rules, including the rules governing the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments and arbitral awards are to be found in statutes, whether in the form of EU legislation or international conventions or, in the absence of those, domestic legislation. Case law is not considered a direct source of law, per se, in Greece, although courts’ judgments, are usually taken into account by lower courts when passing judgements on similar issues. The main exception to this rule concerns judgments of the European Court of Justice, which are binding on Greek courts as regards the interpretation of EU law. This is especially relevant in cases involving the recognition of judgments, given that a large body of the applicable rules is contained in EU instruments, especially EU Regulations.

What are the main international treaties or conventions that apply?

Greece is a Member of the European Union and, as a result, the breadth of EU instruments governing judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters between Member States is also applicable in Greece. These include, most notably:

• Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 on the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (“the Brussels I Regulation”), which applies across all Member States (with the exception of Denmark) and is the main and most widely used instrument governing the recognition and enforcement of judgments in the EU.
• Regulation 2019/1111 on the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters (“the Brussels II Regulation”), which governs matters related to divorce, legal separation, marriage annulment as well matters of parental responsibility, such as custody and access rights.

As a result of its EU membership, Greece is also a party to several conventions with third states, which apply uniformly across the EU. These include:

• The 2007 Convention on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (“the Lugano Convention”). The Lugano Convention currently applies to judgments originating from Iceland, Norway, and Switzerland.
• The 2005 Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements (“the Hague Convention”), which governs the recognition of judgments issued under exclusive choice of court agreements in civil and commercial matters by the courts of other contracting parties. Apart from the EU, the most noteworthy party to the Hague Convention is the UK and therefore its provisions constitute the only avenue under which UK judgments may be recognised in the EU in a formal and predictable manner post-Brexit.

Finally, Greece is a party to a number of bilateral treaties that govern issues of recognition and enforcement of judgments. Although several of these treaties have been superseded by EU instruments (in so far as both Greece and the other contracting state are currently EU Member States, for example, the Greco-German Convention of 1961), a number of them still remain applicable and continue to be relevant in practice, the most important of which are:

• The 1982 Bilateral Convention of Judicial Assistance in Civil and Criminal Matters between Greece and the USSR (“the Greco-Soviet Convention”), which is applicable to judgments originating from all member countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States, including Russia, with the exception of Ukraine.
• The 2004 Convention of judicial Assistance in Civil Matters between Greece and Ukraine (“the Greco-Ukrainian Convention”).
• The 1959 Convention on the mutual recognition of court judgments between Greece and Yugoslavia (“the Greco-Yugoslav Convention”), which is applicable to judgments originating from Serbia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Montenegro and North Macedonia.
• The 1993 Bilateral Convention of judicial assistance between Greece and Albania (“the Greco-Albanian Convention”).
• The 1995 Convention of judicial assistance in civil and criminal matters between Greece and the Peoples’ Republic of China (“the Greco-Chinese Convention”).

What legal principles apply if there is no applicable international treaty or convention?

To the extent that none of the above statutory frameworks are applicable, the provisions of the Greek Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) apply. It is important to note that the CCP provides different requirements for the recognition of foreign judgments issued in adversarial proceedings (such as money judgments or judgments for specific performance) and judgments issued in proceedings related to personal status, the latter being subject to a more permissive recognition framework.

The applicable rules and requirements and the potential defences that may be raised in the context of recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments differ significantly, depending on which of the above legal frameworks is applied.

Brussels I Regulation/Brussels II Regulation/Lugano Convention

Under the Brussels I Regulation, judgments from other EU Member States are recognised in Greece automatically and without any other formality (Article 36, paragraph 1). In a similar vein, such judgments may be enforced in Greece without any declaration of enforceability being required (Article 39). Therefore, there are virtually no requirements, in the strict sense, for recognising or enforcing an EU judgment in Greece. That being said, any interested party may apply to the competent Greek courts and request that recognition and enforcement of an EU judgment be refused (Article 45, paragraph 1), on the basis of the following defences:

• The foreign judgment is manifestly contrary with Greek public policy (Article 45, paragraph 1a).
• The foreign judgment was issued in default of the defendant and the document instituting proceedings was not served on the defendant or was not served in sufficient time and manner as to enable him to arrange for his defence. However, for this defence to be available, the defendant must have commenced proceedings to challenge the judgment, in the jurisdiction where it was issued, when it was possible for him to do so (Article 45, paragraph 1b).
• The judgment is irreconcilable with a judgment given between the same parties in Greece (Article 45, paragraph 1c) or with an earlier judgment given in another Member State or a third state involving the same cause of action and the same parties, provided that the latter judgment is capable of recognition in Greece (Article 45, paragraph 1d).
• The issuing court has taken jurisdiction in contravention of the provisions on exclusive jurisdiction under the Brussels Regulation (e.g. the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the place where the immovable property is situated for proceedings in rem, Article 45, paragraph 1e). However, a Greek court may not otherwise examine the jurisdiction of the foreign court (Article 45, paragraph 3).

The same rules, as above, apply, in general terms, under the provisions of the Brussels II Regulation to EU judgments issued in matrimonial matters and matters of parental responsibility.

Finally, under the Lugano Convention, a judgment from a contracting state is recognised automatically in Greece, provided that none of the applicable defences — which closely resemble the defences that are provided in Brussels I — apply. Enforcement on the other hand requires that the judgment be declared enforceable by the Greek courts, which depends only on the completion of certain formalities. Any interested party may appeal against the decision on enforceability based on the applicable defences, again closely resembling those under Brussels I.

Hague Convention

Under the Hague Convention, a judgment is recognised if it is issued by a court designated in an exclusive choice of court agreement, unless specific grounds of refusal apply (Article 8). The grounds for refusal (Article 9) are the following:

• The jurisdiction agreement is null and void under the law of the chosen court.
• A party lacked capacity to conclude the jurisdiction agreement, on which the judgment is based.
• The defendant was not notified in sufficient time and in such a way as to enable him to arrange for his defence or was notified in a manner inconsistent with the fundamental principles of natural justice.
• The judgment was obtained by fraud.
• Recognition or enforcement would be manifestly incompatible with Greek public policy.
• The judgment is inconsistent with another judgment of the Greek courts between the same parties.
• The judgment is inconsistent with an earlier judgment in another state between the same parties and on the same cause of action.

CCP

Finally, as far as the provisions of the CCP are concerned, foreign judgments may be recognised and enforced provided that the following requirements are met (Articles 323 and 905):

• The foreign judgment is final (res judicata) and enforceable in the jurisdiction of origin.
• The foreign court had jurisdiction pursuant to the provisions of Greek law on international jurisdiction.
• The losing party has not been deprived of its right to fair trial and, in general, of participation in the trial, except if this was done pursuant to a provision that also applies to the nationals of the jurisdiction, from which the judgment originated.
• The judgment is not contrary to a Greek judgment having the force of res judicata between the same parties.
• Enforcement of the foreign judgment is not contrary to Greek public policy.

Foreign judgments that are not issued in adversarial proceedings, such as judgments relating to status, are subject to a special recognition framework under the CCP. In particular, a foreign judgment has, automatically and without any formality, the same effect that it has in its jurisdiction of origin, provided that:

• The judgment applied the substantive law that should have been applied, under Greek private international law and was issued by a court with jurisdiction under that law.
• The judgment is not incompatible with good morals (bonos mores) or public policy.

Bilateral conventions

The requirements for recognition and enforcement under bilateral conventions depend on the terms of each treaty. Most bilateral conventions generally limit the ability of Greek courts to examine the jurisdiction exercised by the foreign court. It should be emphasised that, under the currently prevailing view, the provisions of the CCP continue to apply, even when a judgment falls within the ambit of a bilateral convention, to the extent that the requirements for recognition under the CCP are more permissive than those of the applicable bilateral convention.

As a general rule, Greek courts have traditionally been very receptive to the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments and have interpreted the applicable defences, particularly public policy, rather narrowly.

Greece is a party to the New York Convention of 1958 on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (“the New York Convention”). As a result, foreign arbitral awards are recognised and enforced in Greece, provided that they satisfy the formal requirements set out by the rules of the New York Convention, which include the requirement that the party seeking recognition and enforcement furnish the arbitral award and the arbitration agreement on which it was based, either in their original authenticated form or in a duly certified copy (Article IV, paragraph 1). The satisfaction of these formal requirements is therefore sufficient to recognise and declare enforceable a foreign arbitral award in Greece. Recognition and enforcement may be refused, at the request of any interested party, provided that one of the following, strictly defined grounds of refusal (Article V), applies:

• The parties to the arbitration agreement were under some incapacity, or the agreement is not valid under the law to which the parties have subjected it.
• The party against whom the award is invoked was not given proper notice of the appointment of the arbitrator or of the arbitration proceedings or was otherwise unable to present their case.
• The award deals with a dispute not contemplated by, or not falling within the terms of, the submission to arbitration, or contains decisions beyond the scope of the arbitration agreement.
• The composition of the arbitral tribunal or the procedure was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties or, failing such agreement, with the law of the country where the arbitration took place.
• The award has not yet become binding on the parties or has been set aside or suspended by a competent authority of the country in which, or under the law of which, it was made.
• The subject matter of the dispute is not capable of settlement by arbitration under Greek law.
• The recognition or enforcement of the award would be contrary to Greek public policy.

Regardless of the basis on which recognition or enforcement is sought, procedural aspects of recognition are governed by the provisions of the CCP. Under its framework, when an application is made for the recognition or enforcement of a foreign judgment or arbitral award in Greece, the competent court is the single-member first-instance court (Monomeles Protodikeio) of the debtor’s domicile or residence or, if neither exists, the courts of Athens (Article 905). The party against whom recognition or enforcement is sought (typically the debtor) is not usually served with the application or summoned to the hearing, unless the court specifically orders otherwise, which rarely occurs in practice. Consequently, hearings are usually held ex parte and are typically scheduled two to three months after the application is submitted.

At the hearing, the applicant must appear and provide the necessary supporting documents, which include a copy of the judgment or award and documentation certifying its finality and enforceability in the state of origin. Where recognition is sought under the New York Convention or the Hague Convention, the applicant must also submit a copy of the arbitration or jurisdiction agreement on which the award or judgment is based. Statutory court fees apply, but these generally do not exceed a few hundred Euros. A decision is typically issued within three to five months from the hearing date, making the process relatively swift and efficient.

A judgment of the Greek courts regarding the recognition or enforcement of a foreign judgment or arbitral award may be appealed by the losing party before the competent court of appeal. If the judgment grants recognition, the party against whom recognition is sought may file an appeal, provided that they participated in the proceedings, namely, they were served with the recognition application and appeared at the hearing. However, the filing of an appeal does not suspend the enforceability of the judgment unless the court specifically orders a stay, which is extremely rare in practice.

Considering that the party seeking the recognition or enforcement of a foreign judgment or arbitral award does not have to serve the judgment or award debtor with the application for recognition, it is more common for a judgment to be issued in favour of recognition ex parte. In such a scenario, the debtor may file a third-party opposition (tritanakopi) before the issuing court, seeking to have the judgment set aside on the grounds that one or more applicable grounds for refusal exist. Nevertheless, similar to an appeal, such third-party opposition does not affect the enforceability of the foreign judgment or award.

Greek law unfortunately provides judgment creditors with very limited tools to obtain information about a debtor’s assets before initiating enforcement proceedings. Creditors can access publicly available databases, such as the national land registry and the aircraft or ship registries, but there is no formal process for compelling the debtor, through the courts, to disclose information relating to his assets prior to enforcements. Consequently, most creditors are forced to proceed with enforcement actions without advance knowledge of the existence or location of debtor’s assets, which are discovered only during the enforcement process.

If, in the aftermath of enforcement, the creditor has not managed to identify or seize sufficient assets to satisfy his claims, he may apply to the court and require that the debtor be compelled to submit, under oath, a comprehensive list of his assets and any real estate transfers made in the past two years. For legal entities, this obligation falls on the company’s legal representative. Failure to comply, or providing false information, may result in penalties, including personal arrest and perjury charges. In practice, however, this measure is rarely effective, as any asset transfers outside the two-year window will not be captured, and by the time this procedure is applied, the creditor has often already invested significant time and resources in attempting to locate assets.

Greek courts have jurisdiction to order provisional measures when such measures are to be enforced in Greece. Accordingly, where assets located in Greece are concerned, Greek courts may order provisional measures such as the attachment of those assets. Unlike courts in common law jurisdictions however, Greek courts cannot issue extra-territorial provisional measures; their effect is limited to Greek territory.

Generally, Greek courts may grant provisional measures to protect or maintain a legal right or to regulate a legal situation, provided that there are extraordinary circumstances or an imminent danger necessitating protection of that legal right. These measures can include a wide range of orders against a debtor’s assets, such as:

• the provision of security;
• registration of a prenotation of mortgage;
• provisional attachment of assets;
• appointment of a trustee; or
• any other appropriate measure.

The courts may also issue orders against the debtor personally, including:

• cease and desist orders, orders for the production of documents;
• orders granting possession of assets to the claimant; or
• prohibiting any material or legal modification of assets or rights.

In practice, the most common interim measure is the provisional attachment of assets, which can cover any asset of the debtor, whether tangible or intangible, in the debtor’s possession or that of a third party, including:

• movables;
• immovables;
• trademarks;
• IP rights;
• third-party receivables (such as bank accounts); and
• even the debtor’s business as a whole.

In commercial cases involving monetary claims, the requirement to show imminent danger is usually satisfied if the applicant can show a material probability that the debtor will not have sufficient assets to satisfy the claim often demonstrated through the debtor’s financial statements or prior asset dispositions.

Applications for provisional measures are filed with the competent Single Member Court of First Instance, typically the court closest to where the measures will be enforced. The application must be served on the defendant, who must be summoned to the hearing. In order to safeguard their rights until the main hearing, the applicant may also request an interim order upon filing for provisional measures. This interim order is usually scheduled within a few days of filing and the defendant is typically summoned 24 hours before the hearing. After hearing the parties, the judge may order any necessary measure to protect the applicant’s rights until the main hearing — often prohibiting any legal or material change in the debtor’s assets. Interim orders are common and widely used in practice.

Considering that court-ordered interim measures almost always necessitate the debtor’s notification, a creditor may sidestep this requirement by imposing a provisional attachment of the debtor’s assets based on a foreign judgment or arbitral award that has been recognised by Greek courts. As a matter of fact, any judgment or award that has been recognised in Greece constitutes an enforceable title, allowing the creditor to seize assets provisionally, without the need to resort to the courts. Since recognition proceedings are typically conducted ex parte, this route is often more practical as it does not give any advance notice to the debtor.

Before commencing enforcement proceedings, the creditor is obliged to serve a formal enforcement notice to the debtor and provide him with a deadline of three days to voluntarily satisfy his debts. During that period, no enforcement action may be taken against the debtor. After the lapse of this deadline, the following options are available in respect of the following type of assets.

Bank accounts

In order to seize a debtor’s bank account, the creditor has to serve the bank (or the banks where the debtor may hold accounts), a writ of attachment (κατασχετήριο), which must describe, among other things, the claims and the amounts for which the attachment is imposed and include a formal request to the bank to refrain from paying the attached monies to the debtor. A notification of the attachment is also served on the debtor. Within eight days as of service of the attachment to the bank, the bank is required to state in writing whether the debtor holds an account with the bank, the existence of sufficient funds to satisfy the attached claim, any other attachments imposed on the same accounts (including the details of that creditor and attachment amount). Within eight days of the date of the debtor being notified, the attached amounts are considered to vest automatically (ipso jure) with the attaching creditor, and the bank is obliged to transfer the monies to them.

Shares

Although non-intermediated (i.e. paper) shares are rarely used in practice today, if a creditor wishes to enforce against such shares (and is able to locate them) the enforcement follows the same rules as those applicable to other movable property (see below).

In most cases, practice has shifted to the use of dematerialised or book-entry securities. The primary depository for corporate securities is the Dematerialised Securities System (DSS), a computerised system for the registration and booking of securities in book-entry form, operated by the Central Securities Depository of the Athens Exchange (ATHEXCSD). To enforce against dematerialised shares, the creditor must serve a formal writ of attachment on the intermediary holding the debtor’s account in the depository. Since the creditor may not know the identity of the intermediary in advance, they may serve the writ on the Central Securities Depository (CSD), which is then required to disclose the intermediary’s identity to the attaching creditor. Once this information is obtained, the creditor must serve the writ of attachment on the intermediary and also notify the debtor. As with enforcement against a bank account, the intermediary is required to confirm in writing whether any attached securities exist and to provide details regarding the type of securities, issuer, nominal value, and quantity. If such securities exist, they are transferred by the intermediary to a special account and are subsequently sold by auction on the Athens Stock Exchange.

Debts due to the judgment debtor from third parties

Any claim owed to the debtor by a third party may be attached by the creditor, following the same procedure as for the attachment of bank accounts. The creditor must serve a writ of attachment on the third party, who is then required to confirm in writing whether such a debt exists and specify its amount. Once the applicable deadlines have passed, the claim is considered to be vested in the creditor, who is then entitled to demand payment from the third party.

Real estate

Enforcement against a debtor’s immovable property begins with the court bailiff preparing an attachment report, which is served to the debtor and registered with the competent land registries. The report details the enforceable title, the amount for which the attachment is imposed, and sets a date for a public electronic auction of the property under the supervision of a notary public, typically scheduled eight to nine months from the date of attachment. On the designated date, the notary public conducts the auction electronically, receives the sale proceeds, and, after deducting costs, distributes the remaining amount to the attaching creditor.

Movable property

Enforcement against the debtor’s movable property is made by instructing a court bailiff to remove movable goods from the possession of the debtor and prepare an attachment report. Court bailiffs have the power to seize and remove goods in the debtor’s possession by force. The report details the enforceable title, the amount for which the attachment is imposed, and sets a date for a public electronic auction of the property under the supervision of a notary public, typically scheduled five to six months from the date of attachment. On the designated date, the notary public conducts the auction electronically, receives the sale proceeds, and, after deducting costs, distributes the remaining amount to the attaching creditor.

Under Greek law, the concept of beneficial ownership in the context of enforcement is closely associated with efforts to conceal assets from creditors, often by transferring ownership to offshore entities. Enforcement against such assets is only possible through the mechanism of piercing the corporate veil, namely disregarding the separate legal personality of a company when it is used to harm third parties, evade obligations, or shield assets. Concrete evidence of abuse of the corporate structure is required, such as the use of the entity for illegal purposes or to avoid fulfilling obligations.

In practice, enforcing against the assets of nominee entities is particularly challenging, as a creditor cannot initiate enforcement proceedings directly against the third party. The creditor must first bring court proceedings to obtain a judicial declaration that, despite nominal ownership by the third party, the assets are in fact owned by the debtor. Although Greek courts have traditionally been receptive to such arguments, creditors must invest additional time and resources to achieve the desired outcome.

A creditor may enforce against a debtor’s fractional ownership shares in assets without the need for court permission. This means that a creditor can seize the debtor’s percentage of ownership in both movable assets and real estate. In the case of joint bank accounts, Greek law presumes that deposits are held in equal shares; therefore, a creditor may freely seize half of the funds deposited in such accounts.