Abstract

This article provides a comprehensive practitioner-oriented analysis of the legal framework and procedural mechanisms governing the recognition and enforcement of foreign court judgments and foreign arbitral awards in Greece.

The three principal legal regimes are examined in detail: EU Regulation 1215/2012 (Brussels I Recast), the 1958 New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (to which Greece is party without reservation since 1962), and the domestic framework of the Greek Code of Civil Procedure (Arts. 323 and 903–906 CCP), as modernised by Law 5016/2023.

Particular attention is given to the critical preliminary distinction between recognition (αναγνώριση) and enforcement (εκτέλεση/εκτελεστότητα), the allocation of the burden of proof, procedural requirements, practical timelines, grounds for refusal, provisional measures, post-order execution, and strategic considerations for securing assets on Greek territory.

Corrections are made to certain misconceptions that regularly appear in international commentary, in particular with respect to the reciprocity requirement and the scope of the public policy defence.

1. Introduction

Enforcing foreign judgments and arbitral awards in Greece is one of the most common requests handled for international creditors, multinational businesses and cross-border litigation teams. Greece offers well-established enforcement routes, anchored in the 1958 New York Convention, EU Regulation 1215/2012 (Brussels I Recast) and the Greek Code of Civil Procedure (CCP). Yet practical obstacles around translations, timelines and judicial discretion still catch applicants off guard.

The enactment of Law 5016/2023 – Greece’s new arbitration statute, modelled substantially on the 2006 UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration – has modernised the domestic arbitration framework and refined key procedural elements that affect how Greek courts handle applications related to arbitral awards. In this guide we set out, step by step, how enforcement works in practice, what documents are required, realistic timelines and costs, and strategic considerations for securing assets on Greek soil.

2. Conceptual Framework: Recognition vs. Enforcement

A preliminary but essential distinction that is frequently blurred in international commentary must be drawn between two analytically distinct legal operations:

Recognition (αναγνώριση): The act by which a Greek court (or an enforcement authority) acknowledges that a foreign judgment or arbitral award is binding and produces the effects of res judicata. A recognised foreign judgment may be relied upon as a defence (exceptio rei iudicatae), as a counterclaim or by way of set-off. Recognition does not, of itself, permit seizure or forced sale of assets. It may be sought as a stand-alone remedy (see Art. 323 CCP and Art. 45 of Law 5016/2023).

Enforcement (εκτέλεση / εκτελεστότητα): The act by which a Greek court declares a foreign judgment or award to be enforceable in Greece (exequatur) or, where no exequatur is required (Brussels I Recast), directly enables execution measures against the debtor’s assets. Only a judgment or award that is both final (res judicata) and enforceable in its country of origin can, as a rule, be enforced in Greece.

This distinction matters procedurally: the applicant seeking mere recognition files under Art. 323 CCP (or Art. 35 of Law 5016/2023 for arbitral awards), while the applicant seeking a writ of enforcement (εκτελεστός τίτλος) must follow the exequatur procedure under Art. 905 CCP or rely on the direct-enforcement mechanism of Brussels I Recast. Some applicants need both effects; others may need only recognition.

3. Legal Foundations: The Applicable Instruments

Understanding the legal basis for enforcement of foreign arbitral awards or foreign judgments in Greece begins with identifying the correct instrument. The choice of instrument determines the competent court, the required documents, the available defences and the likely timeline.

3.1  The New York Convention (1958)

Greece acceded to the Convention on 16 July 1962 (entering into force on 14 October 1962). Importantly, Greece has not made the ‘commercial’ reservation permitted by Art. I(3) of the Convention. Accordingly, the Convention applies to the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards made in the territory of any other Contracting State regardless of whether the underlying dispute is characterised as commercial in nature. This is a significant advantage for creditors holding awards arising from, for example, investment treaty arbitrations or regulatory disputes.

The Convention establishes a pro-enforcement presumption: once the applicant establishes the prima facie case (authenticated award + arbitration agreement), the burden of proof shifts to the respondent to prove one of the exhaustive grounds for refusal listed in Art. V.

3.2  EU Regulation 1215/2012 (Brussels I Recast)

For judgments from EU member states in civil and commercial matters, Brussels I Recast (applicable from 10 January 2015) largely abolishes the requirement for a separate exequatur procedure. A judgment that is enforceable in the member state of origin is directly enforceable in Greece. The judgment creditor presents the judgment together with a certificate issued by the court of origin under Art. 53 of the Regulation. Before any enforcement measure is carried out, the Art. 53 certificate must be served on the judgment debtor (Art. 43). The debtor may then apply to the competent Greek court for refusal of enforcement on the limited grounds set out in Art. 45 (public policy, inadequate service in default proceedings, irreconcilable judgments, etc.).

3.3  Greek Code of Civil Procedure (Arts. 323 and 903–906)

Article 323 CCP governs the recognition of foreign court judgments. It operates automatically in the sense that a court seised of a case may apply it without a formal recognition proceeding, but a party may also bring a stand-alone declaratory action (αναγνωριστική αγωγή) to obtain a judicial declaration of recognition.

Articles 903–906 CCP govern the enforcement procedure for foreign judgments and awards that fall outside Brussels I Recast or where enforcement requires a court order. Article 905 CCP is the core provision: it requires the filing of an application (αίτηση κήρυξης εκτελεστότητας) before the competent Single-Member Court of First Instance for an exequatur (declaration of enforceability). For foreign arbitral awards falling outside the New York Convention, Arts. 903–906 CCP apply.

3.4  Law 5016/2023 (Greek Arbitration Reform Act)

Law 5016/2023, which entered into force on 17 January 2023, replaces the old arbitration provisions of the CCP and is closely modelled on the 2006 UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration. Key provisions for present purposes include:

• Article 45: Provides for recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards, supplementing the New York Convention where the Convention applies, and governing the recognition of awards from non-Convention states.
• Article 43: Governs set-aside appeals for awards seated in Greece. The three-month limitation period runs from the date of notification of the award to the applicant party.
• Court competence rules: Clearer allocation of jurisdiction among Single-Member Courts of First Instance for arbitration-related applications.
• Expedited hearing timetables: The law mandates that courts schedule enforcement hearings within a defined period, reducing the risk of indefinite adjournments.

3.5  Bilateral Treaties

Greece has concluded bilateral judicial assistance treaties with a number of non-EU states. These treaties may modify or simplify the conditions for recognition set out in Art. 323 CCP. The principal bilateral partners of relevance in enforcement practice include Albania (Convention of 1993), Bulgaria (Treaty of 1976), Romania (Treaty of 1971 as supplemented), as well as treaties with certain Balkan states inherited under succession arrangements. Treaties with Syria and Egypt also exist. Where a bilateral treaty applies, practitioners must examine its specific provisions, as they may, for example, dispense with certain authentication requirements or extend recognition to administrative judgments. In the absence of a treaty with the United States, enforcement of US court judgments must proceed under the general Art. 323 CCP framework.

4. Enforcing Foreign Arbitral Awards: The New York Convention Route

For most international creditors, the New York Convention is the primary vehicle for enforcing foreign arbitral awards in Greece. The procedure is relatively straightforward, but success depends on meticulous preparation of the application file.

4.1  Competent Court and Jurisdiction

The application must be filed before the competent Single-Member Court of First Instance (Μονομελές Πρωτοδικείο). Under the applicable provisions of Law 5016/2023 and Art. 905 CCP, the competent court is generally determined as follows:

1. If the respondent has its domicile or registered seat in Greece: the court at the place of domicile or seat.
2. If the respondent is domiciled abroad or has no known domicile: the court at the location of the assets to be seized or at the place where enforcement is to be carried out (e.g., where the debtor’s bank account or real property is located).
3. Athens Single-Member Court of First Instance is in practice the most commonly used forum where the respondent is a foreign entity with assets in the Attica region.

4.2  Required Documents

The application file must include:

• Authenticated original or certified copy of the arbitral award: Under Art. IV(1)(a) of the Convention. Authentication requirements vary by jurisdiction but generally require the award to be certified by the arbitral tribunal or the administering institution.
• Original or certified copy of the arbitration agreement: Or the clause in the underlying contract, pursuant to Art. IV(1)(b).
• Certified Greek translations of all documents: Translations must be prepared by a translator certified by the Hellenic Ministry of Foreign Affairs or by the Greek Translation Service (Μεταφραστική Υπηρεσία), or by a lawyer who is certified to certify translations under applicable professional regulations. Translation errors are the single most common cause of procedural delay; engage a certified translator before filing.
• Apostille or consular legalisation: If the country of origin is a party to the Hague Apostille Convention (1961), an apostille affixed by the competent authority of that state suffices. Where the country of origin is not party to the Hague Convention, full consular legalisation (through the Greek consulate in that country, or through the chain of competent authorities) is required. Note that e-Apostilles (electronic apostilles) have been accepted in Greece following the e-APOSTILLE Programme. Consular legalisation can add several weeks and should be initiated early.
• Proof of service on the respondent: Evidence that the arbitration proceedings were properly notified to the respondent (where service is expected to be raised as a defence under Art. V(1)(b)).
• Power of attorney for Greek counsel: Must be notarised and apostilled (or consularly legalised) and filed with the application.

4.3  Burden of Proof: A Critical Point

A matter frequently misunderstood in practice is the allocation of the burden of proof. Under Art. IV of the New York Convention, the applicant bears the burden only of establishing the prima facie entitlement to enforcement, namely the existence and authenticity of the award and the arbitration agreement. Once this is demonstrated, the Convention establishes a pro-enforcement presumption. The burden then shifts to the respondent to prove one of the exhaustive grounds for refusal under Art. V(1). The grounds in Art. V(2) (public policy and non-arbitrability) may be raised by the court ex officio, but in practice Greek courts rarely raise them sua sponte unless the respondent invokes them.

4.4  Grounds for Refusal: Table of NYC Article V Defences

4.5  Time Limits

There is no statutory limitation period under the New York Convention or Greek law for filing a recognition/enforcement application for a foreign arbitral award. However, practitioners must verify whether limitation periods under the governing law of the award, the law of the seat, or the underlying substantive claim may have run. In practice, delaying enforcement also increases the risk of asset dissipation; a prompt application is advisable.

5. Enforcing EU Court Judgments: Brussels I Recast

5.1  Abolition of Exequatur

Under Brussels I Recast, judgments given in an EU member state in civil and commercial matters that are enforceable in that state are directly enforceable in Greece without a prior declaration of enforceability. This represents a fundamental simplification compared to the pre-2015 regime.

5.2  Procedure for Direct Enforcement

The judgment creditor must:

1. Obtain a certified copy of the judgment from the issuing court.
2. Request an Article 53 certificate from the court of origin. This certificate provides a standardised summary of the judgment (parties, operative part, interest, enforceability in the state of origin) in a uniform EU format. It may be obtained through the European e-Justice Portal.
3. Serve the certificate (and where not already served, the judgment itself) on the judgment debtor in advance of any enforcement measures (Art. 43 Brussels I Recast). Failure to serve before enforcement may ground an application to suspend enforcement.
4. Present the documents to the competent enforcement authority (dikastikos epimelistis / court) together with a Greek translation of the certificate, if required.

5.3  Grounds for Refusal Under Brussels I Recast

The debtor may apply to the competent Greek court for refusal of enforcement on the grounds set out in Art. 45 of the Regulation. These include:

• Enforcement would be manifestly contrary to Greek public policy.
• The judgment was given in default of appearance and the debtor was not served with the document instituting the proceedings in sufficient time to arrange for their defence (and did not challenge the judgment when it was possible to do so).
• The judgment is irreconcilable with a judgment given between the same parties in Greece.
• The judgment is irreconcilable with an earlier judgment given in another member state or a third state in proceedings between the same parties on the same cause of action, if the earlier judgment fulfils the conditions for recognition.
• The judgment conflicts with the special jurisdiction rules for insurance, consumer, and employment contracts, or with the exclusive jurisdiction provisions of the Regulation.

Such applications are uncommon and rarely succeed in practice. The court before which enforcement is sought may stay proceedings if the judgment is challenged in the member state of origin.

6. Enforcing Non-EU Court Judgments: Article 323 CCP

6.1  The Recognition Conditions

For foreign court judgments from non-EU states, the judgment creditor must apply to the competent Greek court for recognition under Art. 323 CCP and, if enforcement is also sought, for a declaration of enforceability under Art. 905 CCP. The court will examine whether the following conditions are cumulatively satisfied:

1. Finality and enforceability in the issuing state: The judgment must have acquired the force of res judicata (δεδικασμένο) and be enforceable under the law of the state that issued it. Provisional or interlocutory orders that have not acquired this status are generally not recognisable.
2. Jurisdiction of the foreign court: The foreign court must have had jurisdiction under Greek private international law rules. Critically, the foreign court must not have adjudicated a matter over which Greek courts have exclusive jurisdiction (e.g., rights in rem in immovable property located in Greece, Greek corporate law matters governed by the exclusive jurisdiction provisions of Art. 3 of the Brussels I Recast applied by analogy). If Greek courts had exclusive jurisdiction, the foreign judgment cannot be recognised regardless of other factors.
3. Due service and right to be heard: The defendant must have been duly served with the document instituting the proceedings in accordance with the law of the issuing state (or under the Hague Service Convention), and must have had a real and effective opportunity to appear and defend.
4. No conflicting Greek judgment: The judgment must not conflict with a prior final judgment given by a Greek court between the same parties on the same cause of action.
5. No conflict with Greek public policy or good morals: Greek courts apply international public policy (διεθνής δημόσια τάξη) in this context — i.e., a narrower and more tolerant standard than domestic public policy. Not every difference in outcome compared to Greek substantive law constitutes a public policy violation. The test is whether recognition would manifestly offend fundamental principles of the Greek legal order.

6.2  On the Reciprocity Requirement: A Necessary Clarification

A common error in international commentary is the assertion that Greek law requires reciprocity as a standalone condition for recognition of non-EU judgments. This is inaccurate under current law. Article 323 CCP does not list reciprocity as one of the conditions for recognition. The conditions are those enumerated in section 6.1 above, and they are exhaustive.

While older versions of Art. 905 CCP contained a reciprocity element for the enforcement stage, and while Greek courts historically showed some sensitivity to reciprocal treatment, the current statutory framework imposes no reciprocity condition for recognition. Applicants relying on Art. 323 CCP are not required to demonstrate that the issuing state would recognise a Greek judgment in equivalent circumstances. Practitioners should accordingly not advise clients to regard reciprocity as a formal legal hurdle, though as a matter of judicial goodwill it may occasionally inform the court’s discretionary assessment of borderline cases.

6.3  Procedure

The application for recognition and/or enforcement is filed as a petition before the Single-Member Court of First Instance at the place of domicile of the respondent, or, where the respondent is domiciled abroad, at the court with territorial jurisdiction over the location of the assets or the place of enforcement. The court proceeds to a hearing and issues an order that may be appealed to the Court of Appeal.

There is no statutory limitation period for filing a recognition application under Art. 323 CCP, but the limitation period applicable to the underlying claim under the governing substantive law should be verified.

7. Challenging Enforcement: Defences and Appeal Routes

7.1  Grounds to Challenge a Foreign Arbitral Award

For New York Convention awards, the respondent may raise the Art. V defences discussed in section 4.4. Additionally, under Greek domestic law as updated by Law 5016/2023, an award  (international award with seat in Greece) may be subject to a set-aside appeal under Art. 43 of Law 5016/2023 within three months of the date on which the award was notified to the applicant party. The grounds for set-aside closely mirror the NYC Art. V grounds: incapacity of a party, invalid arbitration agreement, improper tribunal constitution, excess of jurisdiction, procedural irregularity and public policy violations. Greek courts do not review the merits of the award on set-aside; the inquiry is confined to procedural and jurisdictional compliance.

For foreign awards (seated outside Greece), there is no domestic set-aside route before Greek courts; the remedy is to challenge the award before the courts of the seat.

7.2  Typical Defence Strategies

Parties seeking to resist enforcement of a foreign arbitral award in Greece commonly deploy the following strategies:

• Challenge the validity of service: The respondent may argue it was not properly notified of the arbitration proceedings, particularly where service was effected by alternative means or under the Hague Service Convention. This is particularly relevant for respondents with registered seats in states where the Hague Convention is applied restrictively.
• Public policy challenge: Although the success rate is low, this remains the most frequently invoked ground. Defence counsel will attempt to characterise the award as violating fundamental Greek constitutional or legal principles. The more adventurous versions of this argument — such as seeking to re-litigate the merits by claiming the result violates Greek mandatory rules — are uniformly rejected by Greek courts.
• Seek a stay pending set-aside at the seat: If set-aside proceedings are pending in the country of origin, the respondent may request the Greek court to adjourn (suspend) the enforcement application under Art. VI of the New York Convention. The court has discretion whether to grant a stay, and may require the respondent to provide security. A mere threat of set-aside proceedings, without actual pending proceedings, will not ground a stay.
• Translation and document challenges: Errors in certified translations can create arguments about the reliability of the documents placed before the court. This is a technical rather than substantive defence, but it can cause delay.
• Attack the arbitration agreement’s validity: In complex multi-party or multi-contract disputes, respondents may contest whether they were bound by the arbitration clause invoked in the proceedings, e.g., by arguing the clause was not incorporated by reference or was not signed by the relevant legal entity.

7.3  Stay Pending Set-Aside at the Seat

Article VI of the New York Convention grants Greek courts discretion to adjourn a recognition/enforcement application if the respondent has applied to the court of origin for set-aside or suspension of the award. The applicant may request that the respondent provide adequate security as a condition of the stay. In practice, Greek courts grant such stays sparingly: the mere commencement of set-aside proceedings in the country of origin does not automatically suspend enforcement in Greece. Courts will consider the prima facie strength of the set-aside application, the risk of harm to the applicant, and whether security has been or will be provided.

7.4  Appellate Routes

First-instance decisions on enforcement/recognition applications may be appealed to the competent Court of Appeal (Εφετείο). Further recourse to the Supreme Court (Άρειος Πάγος) is available on limited legal grounds (errors of law, constitutional violations). The entire appellate process can add 12 to 24 months to the enforcement timeline at each level, and creditors should factor this into their strategy.

8. Provisional Measures and Asset Preservation

Securing assets before or during enforcement proceedings is often critical. Greek law provides a range of provisional and conservatory remedies enabling creditors to attach assets in Greece and prevent dissipation pending the final enforcement order.

Applications for provisional measures are heard by the competent Single-Member Court of First Instance or, in urgent cases, by the duty judge (αρμόδιος εφημερεύων δικαστής). The applicant must demonstrate: (a) a prima facie claim (πιθανολόγηση δικαιώματος), and (b) a risk that enforcement will be frustrated if measures are not taken immediately (επείγουσα ανάγκη ή επικείμενος κίνδυνος). In genuinely urgent cases, ex parte orders may be obtained within days.

Provisional measures in Greece are procedurally independent of the enforcement proceedings. A creditor may seek provisional relief even before filing the main enforcement application — a powerful tool when asset dissipation is an immediate risk. For disputes originating from arbitration, Greek courts will generally entertain provisional measures applications alongside, or even in advance of, any emergency arbitrator proceedings. The two tracks — emergency arbitrator for contractual relief, Greek court provisional measures for enforcement teeth on the ground — may be pursued in parallel and are complementary rather than mutually exclusive.

9. Post-Order Execution: Giving Effect to the Enforcement Order

A significant gap in many practitioners’ guides is the failure to address what happens after the enforcement order or recognition judgment is obtained. Obtaining the order is only the first step; actually collecting from the debtor’s assets requires activation of the Greek compulsory execution mechanism.

9.1  The Judicial Enforcement Officer (Δικαστικός Επιμελητής)

All compulsory execution measures in Greece are carried out by a judicial enforcement officer (δικαστικός επιμελητής), a legally trained professional authorised by the Ministry of Justice. The enforcement officer serves the enforcement title on the debtor (a mandatory precondition — enforcement may not proceed without prior service), and then carries out the specific execution measures instructed by the creditor.

9.2  Main Execution Methods

Depending on the nature and location of the debtor’s assets:

• Attachment of movables (κατάσχεση κινητών): The enforcement officer physically seizes tangible assets (goods, vehicles, machinery). The assets are subsequently sold at a compulsory auction.
• Attachment of receivables and bank accounts (κατάσχεση εις χείρας τρίτου): The enforcement officer serves the garnishment notice on the third party (typically the bank) holding the debtor’s funds. The bank is then obliged to declare what amounts it holds and to block the attached sums. This is the most common and effective execution method for commercial debtors.
• Forced sale of immovable property (αναγκαστική εκτέλεση επί ακινήτων): A mortgage annotation (pre-notation converted to final mortgage) is registered against the property at the Land Registry (Κτηματολόγιο), followed by a compulsory auction procedure. This process is longer (can take 6–18 months from attachment to auction) but enables recovery from high-value assets.
• Attachment of shares and business interests: Shares in Greek companies (particularly ΕΠΕ/ΙΚΕ/ΑΕ) may be attached through a garnishment notice served on the company or by annotation in the relevant registry (ΓΕΜΗ/Βιβλίο Μετοχών).

9.3  Priority and Competing Creditors

Where multiple creditors have enforcement proceedings pending against the same debtor, Greek law applies priority rules based on the time of attachment and registration. Secured creditors (mortgage holders) rank ahead of unsecured creditors in auction proceeds. Practitioners coordinating multi-jurisdictional enforcement should ensure that Greek enforcement measures are activated promptly to secure a favourable priority position.

10. Timelines, Costs and Practical Roadmap

10.1  Enforcement Timeline

10.2  Costs and Budgeting

Total enforcement costs in Greece typically comprise:

• Court filing fees and stamp duties (παράβολο): Proportional to the value of the claim. For enforcement applications, the filing fee (παράβολο) is set by the applicable schedule of court fees. For a claim of substantial commercial value, filing fees are typically in the range of several hundred to a few thousand euros.
• Translation and legalisation costs: Certified translations and apostille/consular legalisation can cost from several hundred to several thousand euros depending on document volume, language and complexity. Multi-language awards with lengthy procedural histories represent a substantial translation investment.
• Legal counsel fees: Variable by firm, complexity and value at stake. A straightforward uncontested New York Convention enforcement will typically cost significantly less than a contested multi-round proceeding involving appeals.
• Judicial enforcement officer fees: Regulated by Ministerial Decision. Fees are based on the amount recovered (ad valorem) and on the number and type of execution acts performed. These fees are part of the enforceable costs of the proceedings.
• Land Registry registration fees: For pre-notation of mortgage, payable at the competent Land Registry (Κτηματολόγιο or Υποθηκοφυλακείο) and proportional to the secured amount.

10.3  Document Checklist

Before instructing Greek counsel, assemble the following:

• Certified copy of the award or judgment.
• Certified copy of the arbitration agreement or contract (for arbitral awards).
• Proof that the judgment is final and enforceable in the country of origin (for court judgments — typically a certificate of finality from the issuing court or relevant authority).
• Certified Greek translations of all documents.
• Apostille or consular legalisation.
• Proof of service of the original proceedings on the respondent.
• Any available information about the debtor’s assets in Greece (bank details, property records, GEMI company registration numbers, vehicle registrations).
• Power of attorney for Greek counsel (notarised and apostilled).
• If available: prior judgments or court orders from other jurisdictions relating to the same claim (to identify any irreconcilable judgment risk).

11. Enforcement Strategy: Choosing Between Routes and Practical Scenarios

Strategic thinking at the outset can save months of delay and significant cost. The most effective enforcement strategies in Greece share several characteristics: early asset intelligence, parallel provisional measures, and coordination between the enforcement application and execution measures.

Scenario 1: Major arbitral award, debtor has known bank accounts and real estate in Athens

File the New York Convention enforcement application at the Athens Single-Member Court of First Instance while simultaneously applying for provisional attachment of the bank accounts and a pre-notation of mortgage on the real property. This parallel approach prevents asset dissipation during the enforcement process. If the debtor also holds assets in other EU member states, coordinate multi-jurisdictional execution from the outset, using Brussels I Recast or bilateral treaties as applicable in each jurisdiction. Be aware that recent changes to Greek property registration procedures (Κτηματολόγιο integration) have affected how quickly pre-notation registrations take effect and should be factored into the timeline.

Scenario 2: EU court judgment, debtor has limited visible assets

The creditor benefits from direct enforceability under Brussels I Recast, but should instruct local counsel to conduct asset tracing through public registries: the Κτηματολόγιο (land registry), ΓΕΜΗ (General Commercial Registry), vehicle registers (ΚΤΕΟ/ΥΠΑ), and, where appropriate, seek court-authorised disclosure orders. Speed is critical — filing execution measures within days of serving the Article 53 certificate can catch the debtor before it restructures or transfers assets. Where the debtor is a legal entity, scrutinise recent share transfers in the ΓΕΜΗ register.

Scenario 3: Non-EU judgment, no bilateral treaty

This is the most challenging route. The creditor must satisfy all conditions under Art. 323 CCP, and the absence of a treaty means there are no procedural shortcuts. The best approach: engage Greek counsel early — well before formal proceedings — to obtain a preliminary assessment of whether the judgment is likely to be recognised, particularly as regards the jurisdiction condition and the public policy standard. If the recognition outlook is uncertain, consider whether the underlying claim could instead be re-submitted to arbitration (if an arbitration clause exists), as the resulting award would be enforceable via the New York Convention on a more predictable basis.

Scenario 4: Parallel insolvency proceedings

Where the judgment debtor is subject to insolvency proceedings in Greece (πτώχευση under Law 4738/2020) or in another EU member state (in which case the EU Insolvency Regulation 2015/848 may govern), the enforcement strategy must be co-ordinated with the insolvency proceedings. Enforcement actions taken after the opening of insolvency proceedings may be void or voidable. Practitioners must conduct a search of the Ηλεκτρονικό Μητρώο Φερεγγυότητας (Electronic Insolvency Register) before initiating enforcement.

12. Practical Tips From Counsel

From experience handling enforcement applications in Greece:

• Invest in certified translations early. Translation errors or informal translations are the single most common cause of procedural delay. Engage a Ministry-certified translator before filing.
• Check apostille requirements carefully. If the award was issued in a non-Hague Convention country, consular legalisation will be required — a process that can add weeks. Check the current Hague Convention membership list, as accessions occur regularly.
• Identify assets before filing. If the respondent holds real estate, bank accounts or receivables in Greece, incorporate provisional measures into the enforcement strategy from the outset. Early asset intelligence is the single most valuable investment in any enforcement campaign.
• Serve the application correctly. Service on a respondent with no Greek domicile must comply with the Hague Service Convention, the applicable bilateral treaty, or — for EU-domiciled respondents — EU Service Regulation 2020/1784. Defective service is a ready-made defence for the respondent.
• Consider interest. Greek courts will enforce the interest component of a foreign award or judgment as awarded. If the instrument does not specify the interest rate, Greek default legal interest (currently regulated by the Bank of Greece) may apply from the date of the enforcement order.
• Coordinate multi-jurisdictional enforcement. Where the debtor has assets across EU member states, consider simultaneous enforcement proceedings to maximise recovery and prevent cross-border asset shifting.
• Monitor the debtor’s insolvency risk. Check the Electronic Insolvency Register and the ΓΕΜΗ for any pending insolvency filings before committing to enforcement steps.

12. Conclusion

Greece offers a robust and accessible framework for the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments and arbitral awards. The New York Convention route — with its narrow, exhaustive grounds for refusal and its pro-enforcement presumption — remains the most reliable mechanism for international creditors holding arbitral awards. The Brussels I Recast regime provides seamless enforcement of EU judgments. The domestic CCP framework, while more demanding for non-EU judgments, is amenable to well-prepared applications and does not impose a reciprocity condition.

The enactment of Law 5016/2023 has materially improved procedural clarity, aligning Greek arbitration law with international standards and reducing uncertainty around court competence and timetabling. Public policy remains the most commonly invoked defence and the least frequently successful one; Greek courts consistently apply it in its narrow, international variant.

Practitioners and creditors approaching enforcement in Greece should invest early in asset intelligence, certified translations and coordinated provisional measures. The difference between a successful enforcement campaign and a frustrating one rarely turns on the law; it turns on the quality of preparation.

About the Author

Konstantinos Bairaktaris is a partner at Papachatzis | Bairaktaris (PB Legal), specialising in commercial litigation, international arbitration and cross-border enforcement in Greece.

www.pblegal.gr