GREECE Law and Practice Contributed by: John Kyriakides, Vicky Kriketou, Angeliki Stryftou and Konstantinos Lygkonis, Kyriakides Georgopoulos Law Firm
6. Injunctive Relief 6.1 Circumstances of Injunctive Relief In Greece, injunctive relief is available to prevent irrep- arable harm or to preserve rights pending the resolu- tion of a dispute. The most common types of injunc- tions include preliminary injunctions to prevent an act or compel action, and asset freezing orders to secure potential claims. The court evaluates the urgency, like- lihood of success on the merits, and potential harm to both parties before granting relief, with a degree of certainty. 6.2 Arrangements for Obtaining Urgent Injunctive Relief In urgent cases, parties may request an injunction order, which remains in effect until a decision is ren- dered on the interim measures petition. Such requests are typically heard within two to six days, with the order issued within 24-48 hours of the hearing. To obtain an injunction order, the court must preliminar- ily assess the legal and substantive merits of the claim and determine that there is a significant and imminent risk to the subject matter of the dispute pending the main judgment. It is noted that, in these proceedings, the examination of witnesses is limited and, in most cases, prohibited by the judges. 6.3 Availability of Injunctive Relief on an Ex Parte Basis In extreme urgency, the court may grant the order ex parte, without prior notice to the opposing party and without requiring their presence. This type of measure is primarily applied in maritime disputes, which are heard at the Piraeus Court of First Instance. 6.4 Liability for Damages for the Applicant Ιn Greece, if an injunction or interim measure is later discharged or an action is dismissed as unfounded, the applicant is liable to compensate the respondent only if the applicant acted in bad faith or with gross negligence, being aware – or recklessly ignoring – that no such right existed. There is no automatic liability for damages caused by the execution of the interim measure. In certain cases, particularly for ex parte applications or where there is a significant risk of harm to the respondent, the court may require the applicant
a detailed explanation of the reasoning behind their conclusions in the judgment. 5.4 Alternatives to Discovery Mechanisms The Greek civil procedure does not provide for dis- covery mechanisms similar to those in common law systems. Evidence is primarily developed through the parties’ written pleadings, which must include all sup- porting documents. Where relevant documents are held by the opposing party or a third party, the court may order their production upon request, but there is no general obligation of disclosure. Evidence is admitted through documentary evidence, affidavits, expert reports, and, in certain cases, oral testimony. The court also retains discretion to order additional evidentiary measures, such as expert opin- ions, or the submission of specific documents, to clar- ify matters essential to the dispute. 5.5 Legal Privilege Greece recognises legal professional privilege, which protects confidential communications between law- yers and clients under the Lawyers’ Code, the Code of Conduct, the Criminal Code, the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the GCCP. Lawyers may refuse to testify, and parties cannot be compelled to disclose privileged material. Limited exceptions apply under Law 4557/2018 on anti–money laundering and counter-terrorist financing: privilege does not apply where the lawyer or notary participates in such offences, provides advice for their commission, or knows that the client seeks advice to facilitate them. Privilege extends to both external and in-house counsel. 5.6 Rules Disallowing Disclosure of a Document Greek law allows parties to withhold documents in limited cases where disclosure would breach con- fidentiality obligations, reveal trade secrets, or vio- late statutory secrecy rules – such as banking, tax, or personal-data protections. Any refusal is subject to judicial review, with the court assessing the claim individually and weighing the document’s relevance against the necessity of safeguarding confidentiality.
382 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook