GREECE Trends and Developments Contributed by: Dimitris Emvalomenos, Bahas, Gramatidis & Partners LLP
Representative actions may only be filed by so-called qualified entities (QEs), either as: • Greek QEs, being consumer associations which meet legal prerequisites and are registered with a special registrar to be kept with the General Secre - tariat of Commerce of the Ministry of Development; or • bodies registered as QEs in other EU member states. In order to be qualified, and among other criteria imposed by Law 5019, a Greek QE must prove that it has a minimum 12-month actual pub - lic activity that benefits consumers – an assess - ment of whether a Greek QE meets the set criteria is made once every two years by the General Secretariat of Commerce. A newly established “Independent Authority of Mar - ket Control and Consumer Protection” (in operation as from 24 December 2025) was exceptionally added to the QE registrar as a QE of a special status by deviation of the general legal prerequisites (especially Articles 3 and 37 of Law 5255/2025 and Ministerial Decision 102633/2025). Representative actions may regard injunctive and/or redress measures, and can only be brought before a court. With a few exceptions, the provisions of the RAD are followed by Law 5019 on content, proceed - ings and the effect of representative actions, with required adaptations to the Greek legal framework (new Articles 10a-10r of Law 2251). Under the regime of representative actions: • A final decision of a Greek court or another EU court or competent authority on the existence of an infringement harming the collective interest of con - sumers can be applied by any plaintiff as evidence (based on the general Greek rules on evidence) in the context of any other lawsuit before a Greek court claiming a redress measure against the same supplier for the same practice, subject to the provi - sions on res judicata. • A court decision issued on a representative action to cease or prohibit an allegedly unlawful prac - tice has an erga omnes effect, namely an effect towards non-litigants also.
• The irrevocable court decision ordering a redress measure also favours individual consumers who had not explicitly expressed their wish to be represented (with no tacit representation pos - sible) – such consumers may notify their claim to the supplier within the time period set by the court and, following a period of 30 days, they may resort to the General Secretariat of Commerce which requests the supplier’s compliance within a five- day period; otherwise it may impose upon them the sanctions provided (new Articles 10k and 10l of Law 2251). The newly established “Independent Authority of Market Control and Consumer Protec - tion” was awarded with relevant duties of interven - tion in favour of the consumers and imposition of sanctions (see herein above). Third-party litigation funding (TPLF) The purported EU legal framework on TPLF is expect - ed to facilitate product liability claims in general and in particular regarding Greece currently lacking regu - lation. • At EU level, there is an ongoing discussion on the introduction of legislation on TPLF. On 13 Sep - tember 2022, the European Parliament passed a resolution proposing a directive “on the regulation of third-party funding” (P9 TA(2022)0308; “Respon - sible private funding of litigation”). The European Commission agreed to perform a mapping of TPLF status in the EU after RAD application (see “Col - lective redress”, above) and on 21 March 2025 it issued a lengthy study on “Mapping Third Party Litigation Funding in the European Union” covering the EU and four non-EU countries. The study veri - fied the fragmental legal landscape throughout the EU and noted three alternative legislation options, namely: (i) the non-regulation; (ii) a light-touch regulation; and (iii) a strong regulation. The further discussion on EU TPLF legislation will now be con - tinued based on the results of the study. • With the below exception, TPLF is not regulated in Greece, and it may be therefore informally per - mitted, although concerns have been raised on its legality, ethical risks and potential conflicts of interest. Some insurance companies offer custom - ers funding of litigation expenses. However, this is neither common nor really considered acceptable
164 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook