GREECE Law and Practice Contributed by: Dimitris Emvalomenos, Bahas, Gramatidis & Partners LLP
the peace (previously competent to try claims up to EUR20,000) have been or will be either abolished or absorbed by the first-instance courts as from (i) 16 September 2024 or (ii) 16 September 2026 especially regarding the judicial areas of Athens, Piraeus and Poros. In particular, representative actions are subject to the exclusive competence of the three-member first instance courts (Article 10l, paragraph 1 of Law 2251; see also 2.16 Existence of Class Actions, Represent- ative Proceedings or Co-Ordinated Proceedings in Product Liability Claims ). 2.11 Appeal Mechanisms for Product Liability Claims Every definite court decision, including one on a prod - uct liability case, issued by a first instance court may be contested before an appellate court. An appeal can be filed not only by the defeated litigant but also by the successful litigant whose allegations were partially accepted by the court. The appeal timeframe is 30 days for appellants residing in Greece and 60 days for those residing abroad or being of an unknown resi - dence; the time period starts from the service of the definite decision. If the first instance decision is not served by a litigant on the other(s), the appeal time - frame is one year from the issue of the same (Article 518 of the GCCP, as in force from 1 January 2026; Law 5221/2025). Further, a cassation before the supreme court may be filed against an appellate court decision under restrictions and for specified reasons. The timeframe is similar to that for appeals as above (Article 552 ff. of the GCCP). 2.12 Defences to Product Liability Claims As far as defence is concerned, manufacturers may be relieved from liability if they prove that: • they did not place the product on the market; • when they manufactured the product, they had no intention of putting it into circulation; • at the time the product was placed on the market, the defect did not exist; • the defect was caused by the fact that the product was manufactured in such a way that derogation
was not permitted (subject to mandatory regula - tion); or • when the product was placed on the market, the applicable scientific and technological rules at that time prevented the defect from being discovered (the so-called state-of-the-art or development risk defence; Article 6, paragraph 8 of Law 2251). 2.13 The Impact of Regulatory Compliance on Product Liability Claims Adherence to mandatory regulatory requirements may constitute the manufacturer’s defence in product lia - bility cases (Article 6, paragraph 8 of Law 2251; see 2.12 Defences to Product Liability Claims ). 2.14 Rules for Payment of Costs in Product Liability Claims For costs, the “loser pays” rule applies. Court expens - es are “only the court and out-of-court expenses that were necessary for the trial” and, in particular, include: • stamp duties; • judicial revenue stamp duty; • counsels’ minimum fees set by the Lawyers’ Code (Law 4194/2013, as in force); • witnesses’ and experts’ expenses; and • expenses paid for the submission of evidential means, as well as the successful litigants’ travelling expenses in order for them to attend the hearing. However, the expenses that the successful litigant recovers are, as per general practice, substantially lower than the actual expenses. The court offsets the expenses between the litigants in the event of a partial win or loss, while it may off - set them (and does so, as a rule) between litigants who are relatives or on the basis of complex legal issues involved in the litigation. Offsetting only part of the expenses is also possible when “there was a reasonable doubt on the outcome of the trial” (Articles 173–193 and, in particular, 178–179 of the GCCP). 2.15 Available Funding in Product Liability Claims Generally, and in product liability claims, there are various types of funding, as follows.
158 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook