On 9 September 2026 the Greek Ministry of Justice put the draft Code of Alternative Dispute Resolution (Κώδικας Εναλλακτικής Επίλυσης Διαφορών, the “Draft Code”) to public consultation. The consultation closed on 24 September 2026.

The Draft Code is the most ambitious reform of Greek ADR law in decades. It brings arbitration, mediation and judicial mediation under a single instrument. It extends mandatory pre-trial mediation to a large part of civil litigation. It also introduces costs consequences that have no precedent in Greek civil procedure.

PB Legal took part in the consultation. This article sets out the main innovations of the Draft Code and the provisions we consider problematic. Each point is linked to the specific provision it concerns. Article numbers refer to the consultation draft and may change in the text finally tabled before Parliament.

I. Architecture of the Draft Code

The Draft Code comprises 204 articles, organised as follows:

• Arts. 1–20 (Part A): general principles, choice of method and mandatory pre-trial recourse to ADR.
• Arts. 21–73 (Part B): arbitration, closely modelled on the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration.
• Arts. 74–156 (Part C): mediation, including cadastral mediation (Arts. 97–102), school mediation (Arts. 103–111), university mediation (Arts. 112–119) and the organisation of the mediation profession.
• Arts. 157–175 (Part D): judicial mediation.
• Arts. 176–188: amendments to the Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) and related statutes.
• Arts. 189–200: establishment of the Orestiada Centre for ADR, Mediation and Arbitration.

Under Art. 203 the Draft Code repeals Arts. 214B and 214C CCP, the whole of Book Seven CCP on arbitration, Arts. 1–33 of Law 4640/2019 on mediation and Arts. 1–48 of Law 5016/2023 on international commercial arbitration.

Entry into force is staggered (Art. 204). The Code applies generally from publication. Part B applies two months after publication. Most of Part C applies from 1 January 2027, while the Digital Mediation Portal and the tiering of mediators (Arts. 84, 123–131, 133) apply from 16 September 2027. Part D also applies from 16 September 2027.

II. Key innovations in the Draft Code

A. A single code built on common principles

Provisions: Arts. 1, 2, 4–10 and 203

For the first time, all ADR methods are governed by one instrument with a shared set of principles (Arts. 1 and 2).** Art. 5** enshrines party autonomy and imposes a duty to participate in good faith and to refrain from practices that undermine the process (Art. 5(4)).** Art. 5(5)** prohibits the use of ADR to delay resolution or to obtain information for use in other proceedings.

Art. 6 establishes a general duty of confidentiality across all methods. Documents created solely for the process are inadmissible as evidence in later proceedings (Art. 6(4)).** Arts. 7–10** add impartiality and independence, equal treatment, reasonable duration and professional competence.

The practical gain is significant. Greece has so far applied Book Seven CCP to domestic arbitration and Law 5016/2023 to international commercial arbitration. The repeal of both (Art. 203(c) and (e)) leaves a single arbitration regime based on the UNCITRAL Model Law. For foreign users this means one familiar framework instead of two.

B. A wider mandatory pre-trial stage

Provisions: Arts. 16, 17, 19 and 79

Under Art. 16(1), the hearing of an action is inadmissible unless recourse has first been had to mediation (Part C) or judicial mediation (Part D). The parties choose between the two by agreement. Failing agreement, the dispute goes to an initial mediation session (Art. 16(2)).

Art. 19(1) defines a broad scope. It includes family disputes under Art. 592 CCP (with exceptions), property disputes under Art. 614 CCP, inheritance disputes under specified articles of the Civil Code, and company-law disputes under Law 4072/2012. Most notably, it covers all ordinary-procedure disputes before the Single-Member First Instance Court exceeding €10,000 and all disputes before the Multi-Member First Instance Court.

Several safeguards accompany the new rule. A settlement reached is an enforceable title (Art. 16(3)). The costs of the pre-trial stage are recoverable as court costs if litigation follows (Art. 16(4)). Interim relief remains available, and any deadline to file the main action runs from the record of failure to settle (Art. 19(3)). An initial session held before the action is filed satisfies the requirement (Art. 79(2)).

C. Sanctions for non-attendance

Provisions: Arts. 18, 80(13) and 125(2)(a)

A party who unjustifiably refuses to attend the initial session may be fined between €100 and €1,000 (Art. 18(1)–(2)). In cadastral mediation the range is €500 to €1,000 (Art. 18(3)). The court may impose the fine of its own motion, and the conduct is also taken into account when costs are assessed (Art. 18(4) and (7)).

In addition, the absent party bears the whole €150 fee for the initial session as a court cost, irrespective of the outcome of the case (Art. 125(2)(a)). An unjustified refusal to sign the mediator’s memorandum is also weighed in the costs award (Art. 80(13)).

D. The mediator’s settlement proposal

Provisions: Arts. 81 and 89

This is the most innovative, and most debated, feature of the Draft Code. The mediator may put forward a written settlement proposal when the parties declare an impasse. The mediator must do so if both parties request it (Art. 81(1)). The parties are warned in advance of the consequences (Art. 81(2)). They have five days to respond, and silence counts as rejection (Art. 81(4)).

A rejected proposal is attached to the record of failure, with a summary of the reasons for rejection (Art. 81(5)). If the eventual judgment “substantially coincides” with the proposal, the court may order the rejecting party to pay up to twice the ordinary costs, regardless of the outcome (Art. 81(6)).** Art. 89** goes further. The court may also deny that party recovery of its own costs and order it to bear the opponent’s costs. The rule applies at every instance and extends to arbitral awards rendered in Greece or under Greek law (Art. 89(2)).

The mechanism follows the logic of offer-based costs rules known in common-law systems. The Greek version is unusual, however, because the proposal comes from the mediator rather than from a party. We return to its difficulties in Section III.C.

E. A modern arbitration law

Provisions: Arts. 43, 44, 48, 56, 65 and 69–71

• Interim measures (Art. 44). The tribunal may order interim measures and, in urgent cases, preliminary orders without first hearing the respondent. The respondent must then be heard within 24 hours and the order lapses after 20 days (Art. 44(3)). Measures are binding and may be recognised and enforced by the courts (Art. 44(5)). The party who obtained an unjustified measure is liable for damages (Art. 44(6)).
• Joinder and consolidation (Art. 43). The tribunal may admit third parties bound by the arbitration agreement and consolidate pending arbitrations. This is useful in complex corporate, construction and multi-party disputes.
• References to the CJEU (Art. 56). An arbitral tribunal is not a “court or tribunal of a Member State” under Art. 267 TFEU (Nordsee). Art. 56 allows the tribunal to ask the competent state court to make a reference on provisions of EU public policy.
• Limitation (Art. 48(1)). Commencement of the arbitration interrupts limitation under Art. 269 of the Civil Code where Greek law governs the merits.
• Third-party funding (Arts. 69–71). The funder is treated as a person with a material economic interest for conflict-of-interest purposes (Art. 69). The tribunal may order disclosure of the funding agreement (Art. 70) and security for costs (Art. 71).
• Foreign awards (Art. 65). Recognition and enforcement are expressly governed by the New York Convention of 1958.

F. Digitalisation and professionalisation of mediation

Provisions: Arts. 84, 121, 123, 125, 187 and 189–190

• Digital Mediation Portal (Art. 84). Mediation records must be uploaded within three working days. They receive a unique protocol number and identification code, on which their full evidential force and enforceability depend (Art. 84(2)–(3)).
• Tiered certification (Art. 123). Court-registry appointments follow three tiers: Tier C for disputes up to €60,000, Tier B up to €200,000 and Tier A above €200,000. Cross-border disputes go to Tier A mediators regardless of value (Art. 123(5)).
• Fee transparency (Art. 125). Fees must be agreed in writing and fully disclosed in advance. Default minimums apply (€150 for the initial session, €100 per hour thereafter). Fees proportional to the amount in dispute and success fees are prohibited (Art. 125(4)).
• Institutional commercial mediation (Art. 121). Chambers of commerce, professional chambers and the Technical Chamber of Greece may organise commercial mediation services.
• Legal aid (Art. 187). Legal aid under Law 3226/2004 is extended to mediation.
• Orestiada Centre (Arts. 189–190). A new non-profit centre will promote research and training in ADR, including the use of artificial intelligence in mediation and arbitration (Art. 190(2)(b)).

III. Points of concern in the Draft Code

A. Limitation periods left unprotected

Provisions at issue: Art. 17(3); compare Arts. 48(1), 85(1) and 165(1)

This is, in our view, the most serious flaw of the Draft Code. Recourse to the pre-trial stage is mandatory. Yet Art. 17(3) expressly provides that neither the invitation nor the initial session suspends limitation or time-bar periods.

The contrast with the rest of the Code is striking. Voluntary mediation suspends limitation (Art. 85(1)). So does judicial mediation (Art. 165(1)). Commencement of arbitration interrupts it (Art. 48(1)). The party compelled to mediate is thus worse off than the party who mediates voluntarily, and is pushed to file protective proceedings.

The rule is also hard to reconcile with EU law. Art. 8 of Directive 2008/52/EC requires that parties who mediate cross-border disputes are not later barred by limitation. In Alassini (Joined Cases C‑317/08 to C‑320/08) the CJEU accepted mandatory ADR only on condition that it does not substantially hinder access to court, including through the suspension of limitation. The Association of Law Firms proposed that limitation be suspended from service of the invitation until the session closes, and in any event for no longer than 60 days, with Art. 85 applying if mediation continues.

B. Unnecessary formalities in the invitation procedure

Provisions at issue: Art. 17(1)–(2); Art. 80(2), (9) and (12)

As a whole, Art. 17 raises questions about how it is meant to work and introduces needless formalities. Under Art. 17(1) the invitation must be made by the action itself or by a separate pleading. In practice, the process is thus driven by the litigant rather than the mediator. The current practice is simpler and more effective: the mediator informs the other side, usually by email. The procedure in Art. 80 is sufficient on its own.

The deadlines of Art. 17(2) (15 days to respond, 20 days to complete the session) are unworkable where a party resides abroad, given service times, and during August. The Code does not state the consequence of missing them. The Association of Law Firms proposed 60 days for foreign parties, exclusion of August and an express rule that overrunning does not affect admissibility.

Art. 80 itself lacks a clear framework for the mandatory initial session. It does not regulate the initiating party’s request to the mediator with the opponent’s contact details, which is needed as a lawful basis for processing personal data. It sets no deadline for holding the session after the request. It does not address the suspension of time limits from 1 to 31 August.

Finally, Art. 80(9) requires personal attendance. Attendance by counsel alone is allowed only exceptionally and is excluded where videoconferencing is available. This is burdensome for companies and for parties abroad. Since the initial session is primarily informational, a specially authorised lawyer should suffice.

C. Erosion of confidentiality

Provisions at issue: Arts. 80(12)(b), 81(5)–(6) and 89(2)(b); compare Arts. 3(d), 6 and 78(7)

Under Art. 80(12)(b), the mediator’s memorandum must name the party who declined to proceed with mediation. This breaches the confidentiality that underpins the whole institution. It also turns the process into a tool, providing arguments to be used later in court. Declining to continue is a legitimate choice and may have many reasons unrelated to bad faith. The memorandum should only certify that the mandatory stage took place.

The settlement proposal mechanism of Art. 81(5)–(6) raises similar concerns. Placing the rejected proposal and the reasons for rejection before the court conflicts with Art. 78(7), which bars the production of the mediator’s views in later proceedings. It also sits uneasily with the definition of the mediator as a person without power to impose a solution (Art. 3(d)). The test of “substantial coincidence” is too vague to carry such serious financial consequences. A judgment may match the proposal numerically for entirely different legal or factual reasons. Costs imposed “regardless of the outcome” may even penalise the winning party.

The extension to arbitration in Art. 89(2)(b) is especially problematic. It imposes on the tribunal a costs rule the parties did not choose. It requires the tribunal to take cognisance of mediation materials, contrary to Art. 78(7). By referring to awards “under Greek law”, it claims to reach arbitrations seated abroad. It creates a new ground for challenging awards and discourages the choice of Greece as a seat. Its deletion, or its application only by express written agreement made after the dispute arises, was proposed.

D. A duty of good faith without a sanction

Provisions at issue: Art. 5(4)

The duty to participate in good faith, including the duty to refrain from undermining the process, is important. As drafted, however, breach has no legal consequence. The provision is therefore an imperfect rule of law (lex imperfecta). It could be linked to a monetary penalty, applying mutatis mutandis Art. 205(2) CCP. Alternatively, it could be brought within the sanctions regime of Art. 18.

E. Value-based choice of method

Provisions at issue: Art. 13

Art. 13 favours mediation or judicial mediation for disputes up to €250,000 and arbitration above that amount. The purpose and value of this distinction are doubtful. The amount in dispute is not a reliable indicator of suitability. A multi-million dispute may be ideal for mediation, while a smaller one may be better suited to arbitration.

Although Art. 13(6) gives priority to the parties’ agreement, the threshold may acquire normative weight in practice. The distinction should be deleted. The general guidance of Art. 12, based on the nature and complexity of the dispute, should remain. That choice belongs to the parties themselves, in line with the principle of party autonomy, which is the cornerstone of ADR.

F. Judicial mediation: an option in name only

Provisions at issue: Arts. 16(1)(b), 17 and 159(1); Art. 204(4); Art. 161

Arts. 16 and 17 present judicial mediation as an alternative for all disputes under Art. 19. However, Art. 159(1) limits judicial mediation to disputes involving the State, public-law entities and public enterprises (Art. 76(2)(a)–(c)). Part D also enters into force only on 16 September 2027 (Art. 204(4)). In practice, the choice offered by Art. 16 cannot be exercised. Either Art. 159(1) should extend to all disputes under Art. 76(1), or judicial mediation should be removed from Arts. 16 and 17 until Part D is in force. In addition, Art. 161 should provide for electronic filing of the application for judicial mediation.

G. A transitional mismatch

Provisions at issue: Art. 204; Art. 203(d)

Chapter D of Part A (the mandatory pre-trial stage, Arts. 16–20) applies from publication. The provisions that implement it apply only from 1 January 2027 (Part C) and 16 September 2027 (Part D). Meanwhile Law 4640/2019 is repealed on 1 January 2027 (Art. 203(d)).

For several months two mandatory regimes will coexist, with different scope, value thresholds, sanctions and limitation rules. Moreover, Arts. 85, 86 and 97–102 are not listed in Art. 204 and would therefore apply from publication, before the provisions to which they refer. The mandatory stage should apply from 1 January 2027, the judicial mediation option from 16 September 2027, and a transitional rule should govern actions filed in the interim.

H. Inconsistent liability standards

Provisions at issue: Art. 41 and Art. 78(8)

Arbitrators are liable for intent and gross negligence (Art. 41). Mediators are liable for intent only (Art. 78(8)). There appears to be an evaluative contradiction between the two. No justification for the difference emerges, particularly in light of the legislator’s own assessment in private law under Art. 332 of the Civil Code. The standards should be aligned.

I. Technical gaps in the arbitration regime

Provisions at issue: Arts. 33(1), 34(9), 54, 60(3), 62(1), 64(3), 65, 66(4) and 73(6)

• Enforcement of foreign awards (Art. 65; Art. 203(c)). The repeal of Book Seven CCP removes Art. 903 CCP, while Art. 906 CCP, which refers to it, is left unchanged. Art. 65 refers only to “the competent court”, without naming the court or the procedure. It should expressly designate the Single-Member First Instance Court of the respondent’s domicile or seat (otherwise Athens), in non-contentious proceedings, preserving the jurisdiction of the Piraeus maritime chamber.
• Form of the award (Art. 60(3)). The award no longer needs to state its date and place, nor is it deemed made at the seat, contrary to Art. 31(3) of the UNCITRAL Model Law and Art. 40(3) of Law 5016/2023. These elements matter under the New York Convention and for computing time limits.
• “Delivery” of the award (Art. 62(1)). The term “παράδοση” suggests physical handing over. It may cause difficulty where the award is notified electronically, especially if physical and electronic receipt occur at different times. It is also inconsistent with “service” (επίδοση) in Art. 63(2). “Notification” (γνωστοποίηση) would be preferable.
• Document production (Art. 54). To prevent dilatory use, the tribunal should be required to rule on such requests within a maximum period. Compare Art. 62(1)(b), which does set a time limit.
• Number of arbitrators (Art. 33(1)). The mandatory odd number leaves unregulated clauses providing for two arbitrators and an umpire, which are common in shipping contracts.
• Register of arbitrations (Art. 34(9)). The special register creates a procedural burden and affects confidentiality.
• Res judicata (Art. 64(3)). The phrase “decided by the arbitral tribunal”, present in Law 5016/2023, is omitted. This could suggest that res judicata extends to issues that were not decided.
• Arbitral institutions (Arts. 66(4) and 73(6)). The register of institutions is described as kept “for information purposes only”. Yet institutions that fail to register within twelve months “cease to operate”.

J. Further points

Provisions at issue: Arts. 11(5), 19(1)(d), 77(3)(a), 85, 100 and 125

• Expert fees (Art. 11(5)). A general reference to the CCP is not enough, especially where views differ. The Code should state that disagreement over the fees of an expert or technical adviser is resolved as directed by the arbitrator, mediator or judge-mediator.
• Withdrawal from the docket (Art. 77(3)(a)). In this case too the action should be withdrawn from the docket, as provided in Art. 85(3) and (4).
• Voluntary and mandatory mediation (Art. 85). The distinction between “voluntary” and other recourse to mediation is unnecessary for the effects Art. 85 provides. The wording should ensure uniform treatment, for example where mediation is required by a special statutory provision.
• Proportionality of cost (Arts. 19(1)(d) and 125). For claims just above €10,000, the combined cost of mediator fees, stamp duties and lawyers’ fees may be disproportionate to the value of the dispute.
• Participation of the State (Arts. 19, 76(2) and 100). The Code does not specify which body has authority to settle on behalf of the State, or under what procedure. Without this, the State’s participation risks being a formality that only adds cost and time.

IV. Practical implications of the Draft Code

Pending the final text, clients involved in or anticipating disputes in Greece should consider the following:

• Protect limitation. Where limitation is near, file the action together with the invitation (Art. 17(1) permits this). Filing interrupts limitation, which the pre-trial stage itself does not (Art. 17(3)).
• Review dispute resolution clauses. Specify the preferred ADR method and, for arbitration, an odd number of arbitrators and institutional rules (Arts. 16(2), 33(1)).
• Plan for foreign parties. Allow for service abroad, arrange videoconference attendance and grant Greek counsel a specific, certified authority (Arts. 17(2), 80(9)).
• Take mediator proposals seriously. Rejection may carry costs of up to double the ordinary amount and loss of own costs (Arts. 81(6), 89(1)).
• Reconsider seat and governing law. Until Art. 89(2)(b) is clarified, the choice of a Greek seat or Greek law in arbitration carries an additional costs risk.

V. Conclusion: the Draft Code and next steps

The Draft Code is an ambitious and largely welcome step. It modernises Greek arbitration law, professionalises mediation and gives ADR a coherent legal basis. Its success, however, will depend on the details: protecting litigants against limitation, preserving the confidentiality that makes mediation work and ensuring legal certainty in the transitional period. PB Legal will follow the Draft Code through Parliament and will publish an analysis of the final text.

This article is provided for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. Article references are to the draft published for consultation on opengov.gr (9–24 September 2026).