GREECE Law and Practice Contributed by: Dimitris Emvalomenos, Bahas, Gramatidis & Partners LLP
litigants agree or, as a rule, when there is a risk that a specific means of evidence will be lost or could dete - riorate in future, or if the status of an object in dispute needs to be determined immediately. This requires the filing of a petition to the court even before the trial commences, the court being the main trial court or, exceptionally, any other court that can make an immediate decision in the case of an imminent risk. Simplified injunction proceedings apply to the peti - tion at issue. Should the court accept the petition for preservatory evidence, it orders details such as the time frame for conclusion of the evidential procedure. The court of the main trial must take into account the preservatory evidence conducted as above, irrespec - tive of whether the risk occurred or not (Articles 348– 351 and 686 ff. of the GCCP). 2.7 Rules for Disclosure of Documents in Product Liability Cases In general, there are no rules of discovery in judicial proceedings. The litigants disclose any evidence sup - porting their case, per their discretion, by filing their submissions at the specified time, depending on the court and proceeding type. Evidential means are spec - ified, and their admissibility is subject to restrictions (Articles 335 ff. of the GCCP). The general principles of good faith, bonos mores and honest conduct apply (in particular, Articles 116 and 450 of the GCCP). The liti - gants may request that the court order the disclosure of documents in the possession of their opponents or a third party under certain conditions (Articles 450 ff. of the GCCP and 901–903 of the GCC). 2.8 Rules for Expert Evidence in Product Liability Cases Expert evidence is generally regulated and also covers product liability cases. If a court finds that the issues to be proven require special scientific qualifications, it may appoint one or more court experts, describing their task and the time - frame for the expert report and adjourning the hearing for that purpose (Articles 368–392 of the GCCP). The experts obtain knowledge of the case file regarding the technical issues for which they were appointed and/or may request clarifications from the litigants or third parties. In this case, each litigant is entitled to appoint a technical adviser who submits their opinion
and raises relevant questions to the court-appointed expert. The opinion of the court-appointed expert is not binding on the court. Additionally, the litigants may submit to the court an unlimited number of expert/technical reports support - ing their allegations. The reports of litigant-appointed experts are of lesser evidentiary value than those of the court-appointed experts. Factual or expert witnesses appointed by the litigants may give sworn depositions before a notary public, a lawyer (although not the litigant’s lawyer) or, if outside Greece, a Greek consular authority. The opponent must be summoned to such depositions two working days in advance, and is entitled to obtain a copy prior to trial. Non-compliance with the procedural require - ments renders the deposition inadmissible. Various procedural requirements in the taking of depositions apply – eg, regarding the total number allowed, which is up to three per litigant and up to two for rebutting the opponent’s depositions (Articles 421–424 of the GCCP). 2.9 Burden of Proof in Product Liability Cases In civil litigation, including product liability claims, and under ordinary proceedings, a claim must be fully proven by the litigant raising it, who thus bears the burden of proof, unless it is reversed by law or case law (see 2.1 Product Liability Causes of Action and Sources of Law ). Exceptionally, such as in injunctive proceedings, the standard of proof may be lower and based “on the balance of probabilities” (Articles 347, 690 of the GCCP). 2.10 Courts in Which Product Liability Claims Are Brought Private law disputes, including product liability cases, are tried by civil courts and by one to three judges, and thus not by a jury, depending on the amount involved in the dispute. As a rule, one-member first- instance courts are competent to try claims valued up to EUR250,000; and three-member first-instance courts, claims exceeding EUR250,000 (Articles 14 and 18 of the GCCP). Following the unification of the first instance judicial level within an overall restructuring of courts’ territorial and subject matter competence by Law 5108/2024, as in force, the ex-justices of
157 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook