GREECE Law and Practice Contributed by: Dimitris Emvalomenos, Bahas, Gramatidis & Partners LLP
2. Product Liability 2.1 Product Liability Causes of Action and Sources of Law The causes of action for product liability range from strict liability for a manufacturer to administrative and criminal liability. More specifically, these can be explained as follows. • Strict liability – this derives from the PLD as trans - posed into Greek law by Law 2251 (see 1.1 Prod- uct Safety Legal Framework ). Article 6, paragraph 1 of Law 2251 provides that “the producer shall be liable for any damage caused by a defect in his product”. Therefore, the prerequisites for a manu - facturer to be held liable are: (i) a product placed on the market by the manufacturer being defective; (ii) damage that has occurred; and (iii) a causal link between the defect and the damage (considered under the theory of “causa adequata”). The strict liability regime does not preclude other liability systems from providing a consumer with greater protection in a specific case (Article 14, paragraph 5 of Law 2251). • Contractual liability – this requires a contractual relationship between the parties where the buyer may not necessarily be a consumer (Articles 513 ff. of the Greek Civil Code (GCC) on contracts of sale of goods, as in force, following the transposi - tion of Directive (EU) 2019/771 “on certain aspects concerning contracts for the sale of goods” (which, among others, repealed Directive 1999/44/EC), by Law 4967/2022 (in force as of 9 September 2022). A seller may be strictly liable, ie, irrespective of fault, for the lack of conformity of the sold product with the sales contract at the time the risk passes to the buyer, as such conformity is defined by law. The knowledge of the buyer releases the seller from liability under stipulated conditions, among other reasons for such release (in particular Articles 534–540 of the GCC). • Tortious liability – the claimant must establish the defendant’s fault in tort claims. However, case law reverses the burden of such proof in favour of the claimant/consumer based on the “theory of spheres”, thus obliging the defendant to prove absence of fault in order to be released from liabil - ity (in particular, Articles 914, 925 and 932, together
Moreover, a special set of sanctions may be imposed on infringers that do not provide requested docu - ments, or that do not respond to consumers’ com - plaints per the stipulated proceedings. An additional sanction imposable in certain condi - tions and providing for the temporary closure of the infringer’s business for a period of three months to one year was abolished in 2022. Further, appropriate injunctive measures, as a case may be, may be taken by the competent organs of the Ministry. A summary of any decision imposing a fine that exceeds EUR50,000 (or not, if it is imposed for a repeated infringement) is publicised by any appropri - ate means and uploaded to the Ministry website within five working days of its issue. Lastly, a general five-year prescription period applies for breaches falling within the remit of the enforcement authorities of the Directorate of Consumer Protection. Fines for various breaches of Law 2251 are being imposed on a fairly regular basis and on a variety of entities with respect to their activities. Unfortunately, there are no central records or other e-bases list - ing such fines and the judicial development of the respective administrative decisions that imposed them since the person/entity fined may challenge the decision before the administrative courts. Based on the review carried out for the years since 2019 in case law bases, most of the imposed fines concern abu - sive general terms and conditions mainly of banks and insurance companies (especially regarding hospitali - sation expenses) and various types of unfair/mislead - ing commercial practices, including advertising and labelling, valued no more than EUR100,000 as a rule and exceptionally up to around EUR700,000 (although usually decreased when they are challenged). Fines for product safety breaches are very rare. Indicatively, the author would mention Decision No 435/2020 of the Athens Administrative Court of Appeal which con - firmed a fine of EUR9,000 imposed for the placing into the market of unsafe children’s clothes (determining this as reasonable in the circumstances of that case).
155 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook