Category: Greece

Prior to building up or transplanting their advertising campaigns in Greece, businesses wishing to acquire a share in the local media market, besides familiarizing themselves with their industry sector through review and analysis of the industry economics, participants, and main competitors, should immerse themselves into the regulatory framework for advertising that will enable them to develop their business plan and marketing strategies most efficiently.

Advertising in Greece is regulated both at a statutory level, by virtue of Law 146/1914 on Unfair Competition, Law 2251/1994 on Consumer Protection, and the Greek Code of Advertising and on a general principles basis. General principles require that all advertisements be true and transparent, with objectivity as a guiding principle, subject to the fact that a large number of transactional decisions are emotion-driven. 

Five different types of advertising are expressly regulated under Greek laws: unfair advertisements, misleading advertisements, aggressive advertisements, comparative advertisements, and direct advertisements. Businesses that aim at complying with Greek advertising regulatory standards should definitely refrain from the first three types and be highly cautious when proceeding with the latter two. 

Law 146/1914 classifies any advertisement that does not comply with the principles of morality as unfair and classifies any inaccurate public declaration related to the quality, origin, manufacture or pricing of the advertised goods or services that gives consumers the impression of an extremely good offer as misleading – and explicitly prohibits both practices. In determining whether an advertisement is misleading, the law also considers its possible influence on consumers’ economic behavior.

Aggressive advertisements fall within the scope of Law 2251/1994, which refers to advertisements that use harassment or coercion (in the form of physical force or undue influence), that significantly impair or are likely to significantly impair the average consumer’s freedom of choice, or inappropriate behavior with respect to the advertised goods or services and, thus, lead or are likely to lead consumers to a transactional decision that they would not have made otherwise. Unsolicited phone calls, personal visits to the consumer’s private space despite the consumer’s request to leave and not return, or refusal to leave the premises until a transaction is made are all examples of aggressive advertisements. 

The remaining two types of advertising – direct and comparative advertisement – may be lawful under certain circumstances. Law 2251/1994 permits communication directly to the consumer, but only upon the consumer’s express consent. Comparative advertising, for its part, is considered to be a permissible commercial practice as long as it compares goods or services meeting the same needs or intended for the same purpose, is carried out in an objective way, and is based on any material, verifiable, and representative features of the goods or services – such as price. However, the law deprives comparative advertisement of its lawful character where, inter alia, it is misleading, takes unfair advantage of or discredits the competitor’s trademark and/or reputation, or intends to create confusion with the competitor’s products or trademarks.

Besides the above-mentioned hard-core regulatory framework, the overwhelming majority of illegal and misleading advertising cases are regulated by the Greek Code of Advertising, which basically incorporates all relevant provisions of the respective code of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) and binds all parties involved, namely advertisers, consumers, and the media. While observance of the provisions of the Code is carried out by the Communication Control Council, advertisement control is vested upon the First Instance Control Committee and the Second Instance Control Committee, which are able to issue directly enforceable decisions to be immediately implemented by the media as members of the Council. Any advertisement that is deemed to be in violation of the Code’s provisions may be brought before the Committees either ex officio or by a written petition of any third party entitled to do so.

It is, therefore, essential that national and international businesses that aim to market their goods, services, or activities in the Greek market become entirely aware of the respective regulatory landscape governing truth in advertising and marketing and implement internal checklists and formal review processes, including training and clearance procedures by legal counsel, in order to ensure full compliance with the applicable advertising standards and avoid unscheduled downtime, as well as costly lawsuits and civil penalties.

By Panagiotis Drakopoulos, Partner, and Mariliza Kyparissi, Senior Associate, Drakopoulos Greece

This Article was originally published in Issue 4.3 of the CEE Legal Matters Magazine. If you would like to receive a hard copy of the magazine, you can subscribe here.

Almost five years after the European Commission submitted its first proposal on the reformation of the data protection landscape, a new General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) has finally been adopted, designed to harmonize data protection across EU Member States. The GDPR will be directly applicable in all Member States as of May 25, 2018, placing, in the interim, all interested businesses in a race against time to observe all the compliance obligations it imposes.

Starting from its scope, the GDPR expands the territorial reach of the current Data Protection Directive 95/46/EC, bringing together EU and non-EU established data controllers and processors. Although the conditions of EU establishment initially created confusion as to whether it would require the setup of a legal entity or a mere operational presence in any Member State, it appears that the presence of a representative alone suffices. In addition, data controllers and processors outside the EU fall within the territorial scope of the GDPR as long as they target data subjects within the EU through the offering of goods or services or monitor their behavior through online tracking methods.

A newly added and somewhat confusing provision relates to the appointment of a Data Protection Officer (DPO). Although the initial GDPR approach required a DPO appointment only for companies exceeding 250 employees, the final text requires that all companies are required to appoint a DPO if data processing is conducted by a public authority or involves the regular and systematic monitoring of data subjects on a large scale as part of the company’s main business activities or concerns the processing on a large scale of special categories of data. The GDPR allows any employee of the data controller or the processor to serve as a DPO and allows companies to outsource such services to a third-party consulting firm. 

The GDPR inserts a brand new breach-notification procedure, requesting data controllers to notify within 72 hours of awareness the competent supervisory authority – the DPA in Greece – of any breach identified. The GDPR exempts situations where the breach identified is not likely to result in a risk for the rights and freedoms of the data subjects. However, companies appear to be baffled as to the exact steps they need to follow in case of breaches falling within this GDPR provision, with many of them complaining that the new framework forces them to re-examine their internal processes and be equipped with costly advanced-technology administration systems that will comply with the newly introduced breach notification standards.

As the first part of the GDPR’s two-year lead-in period has come to an end, the remaining 16 months – until its direct implementation – appear to be rather pressing for Greek businesses that need to get their compliance checklists ready as soon as possible and devise an efficient plan for their next steps towards full regulatory compliance in a timely manner. However, recent statistics reveal that more than 50% of Greek companies have yet to commence any procedure related to the new GDPR, while a significant part of the Greek market lacks basic factors and elements, such as management and organizational infrastructure, that would enable them to comply with at least the minimum requirements of the new legislation.

Instead of getting themselves lost in the maze of endless information that needs to be administered and processed, Greek businesses should first acquaint themselves with the new framework and conduct an information audit on their records, data archives, and data storage systems, in order to track the kinds of personal data they possess, their origin and destination, and the identity of the data subjects. As soon as this process is completed, it will be easier for them to reconsider and reform their internal procedures and mechanisms to accommodate the demands of the GDPR.

In general terms and despite any – for the time being – uncharted waters, the GDPR comes as a comprehensive legislative text that aims at defining a secure and harmonized framework of data protection and imposes significant fines and penalties – at times reaching as much as 20% of the breaching company’s annual turnover – in order to ensure a smooth implementation.

By Panagiotis Drakopoulos, Senior Partner, and Mariliza Kyparissi, Senior Associate, Drakopoulos Law Firm

This Article was originally published in Issue 4.2 of the CEE Legal Matters Magazine. If you would like to receive a hard copy of the magazine, you can subscribe here.

2016 has been a rather challenging year when it comes to financial openness and economic growth, as many countries across the globe have seen their economies running out of steam and their national businesses feeling the squeeze, while the investor fear gauge is still rearing high.

Zooming into the area of South East Europe (SEE) on the global financial map, we come across a region that has the potential to be on the right track in terms of growth rates and investment returns but still has to battle against severe material headwinds, including stalled revenues, fiscal easing measures in some of its countries, and investors buckled up in view of financial turbulence.

An in-depth look at the economies and emerging markets of SEE for 2016 offers glimmers of hope and raises expectations as we step into 2017. A steady growth rate of 3% has been reported for the region, along with an encouraging growth in revenues for a good range of industry areas and positive GDP projections. Zeroing in further on the core markets of our firm’s practice in the SEE region (our firm offers legal services in 11 countries out of offices in Greece (opened in 1992), Romania (2005), Albania (2007), and Cyprus (2016)), the emerging economies are showing slight signs of recovery and stabilization, with Romania and Cyprus leading the rebound. 

Following almost seven years of austerity-driven recession, Greece still manages to maintain its top position among Europe’s most indebted countries by racking up huge amounts of government debt. The first half of 2016 has seen Greek exports struggle, mainly due to capital controls and structural rigidities, as the trade deficit decreased by 16.1% to EUR 1.74 billion in October 2016 from a EUR 2.1 billion gap in the same month of the previous year. Greek economic and credit growth have suffered greatly from the increased level of non-performing loans, the management of which has occupied a good deal of our client portfolio in terms of legal offering. Interestingly, however, the OECD reports that growth has rebounded in the second half of 2016 and is expected to gradually increase in 2017, with many investors raising their expectations following announcements of structural reforms to reduce the regulatory burden in key industry sectors. Over recent months we have seen a few of our key clients in Greece – including both multinational companies and real estate funds – preparing to re-cluster and reboot some of their large-scale projects in anticipation of the conclusion of a policy review with creditors, which could rekindle investor confidence for the coming year. 

Despite a long period of political fluctuations and corruption scandals, Romania closes 2016 with a recently elected government and rapid growth, accompanied by a boom in domestic demand. Statistics report that through Q3 the Romanian economy expanded significantly, with industrial output inching up approximately 3.4% from last year. Most of our clients seem to be comfortable in choosing Romania for their business expansion in the SEE, confirming that it is a jurisdiction with a promising future in 2017 in the form of high investment rates and FDI levels – or, in other words, a stable and low-risk business environment for multinational and global industry players.

The fact that SEE consists of an impressive mixture of countries with radically different economies and levels of market development is further confirmed by the presence of Albania in the same zone. Over our 10-year operation in the country, we have experienced the transformation of one of the poorest nations in Europe to an autonomous market-oriented economy. Albania recorded growth throughout 2016, attracting significant private investment and reporting high domestic demand, and it is expected to maintain its economic growth levels throughout 2017, with a minor forecasted percentage loss. Albania is currently getting ready to enter a pre-election period with a strong reform plan in hand, and it remains to be seen whether it can leverage that momentum in favor of EU integration. On the negative side, corruption and an inconsistent rule of law remain the great challenges for Albania, which, if not successfully addressed, will be definite deal-breakers for any progress.

Moving onto a more stable orbit than the aforementioned jurisdictions, Cyprus – despite the 2012-2013 crisis – has been showing steadily increasing growth rates over the last seven years and has managed to reach the end of 2016 with its economy on a solid footing. Although the transaction volume in the Cypriot real estate market stayed at low levels and is expected to continue in mediocrity for the first half of 2017, overall, Cyprus has secured for its national and international investors a protected regulatory environment with enhanced compliance measures and risk management procedures.

On the basis of the above, if we had to field the question of what is next for SEE markets in the coming year, we would definitely share our optimism that the economies of the region will continue to expand throughout 2017 – with Romania continuing to be a top performer – ensuring macroeconomic stability, a big investment flow, and an overall credit rating upgrade.

By Panagiotis Drakopoulos, Managing Partner, and Mariliza Kyparissi, Senior Associate, Drakopoulos

This Article was originally published in Our Third Special Year-End Issue of the CEE Legal Matters Magazine. If you would like to receive a hard copy of the magazine, you can subscribe here.

Past and recent records of litigation proceedings before first instance courts in Greece reflect an unfortunate reality: severe delays in case trials, most of the times coming as a result of lengthy hearings and an ever-expanding caseload, as well as many consensual or disputed trial adjournments or ex officio adjournments due to fortuitous circumstances (strikes, elections, etc.).

The Greek Civil Procedure Code, as last amended by virtue of Law 4335/2015, came into force on January 1, 2016, and introduces significant amendments to the Greek civil procedural system, aiming at a more effective administration of justice by promoting a more flexible and expedient written procedure (Articles 237-238) over the oral standard procedure before first instance courts (Article 233).

According to the new Civil Procedure Code, most civil cases – and all contractual and commercial matters where the nature of dispute is monetary – can be tried within five to eight months of their registration with the court, in contrast to the previous system, which required a period of at least 24 months to pass prior to a hearing taking place.

The new procedure introduces a limited oral hearing of the case and requires judges to render their decisions on the basis of the evaluation of pleadings and exhibits submitted to them by the litigants within 100 days of the filing of the lawsuit, and any addenda must be filed within 15 days after the filing of the pleadings. Adjournments are not allowed, but this restriction is balanced by the discretion of the judge to grant an extension of the procedural time limits on special grounds (Article 148). Further to that, cases may no longer be cancelled as a result of “fortuitous events” (such as strikes, elections, etc.) and now may only be cancelled as a result of non-filing of pleadings by either party. The party that fails to comply with the rules and time limitations that apply to civil proceedings is heard in absentia, leading to a summary judgment.

This procedure does not mandate the presence of the litigants and their attorneys at the hearing of the case and does not allow for witness examination. However, where the court, having read the file of the case, determines that an examination of one witness from each litigant’s side is necessary, it may achieve this by scheduling a new, additional hearing for this purpose. Witness testimony is provided through affidavits filed along with pleadings.

Although litigation is almost always parties’ first choice in terms of dispute resolution in Greece, alternative dispute resolution processes such as arbitration or mediation remain available as well. The new procedural rules seek to support alternative forms of dispute resolution by introducing judicial mediation for private law disputes (Article 214b-c).

Admittedly, the new procedural system imposes stricter rules and time limits that may impede the proper exercise of a right, such as the short deadline of 60 days to serve a lawsuit abroad after its filing, with a potential penalty of inadmissibility. Nevertheless, the globalization of commercial disputes calls for the simplification of adjudication procedures, a direction also indicated in the Glykantzi v Greece ruling (2012) of the European Court of Human Rights, in which the Court recognized that numerous member states have already introduced simplified rules of civil procedure such as written proceedings, avoidance of lengthy oral hearings, and so on, and thus indirectly encouraged Greece to adopt similar regulations.

Recitals of Law 4335/2015 highlight that current socio-economic conditions demand speedy court procedures amid inadequate governmental resources, and therefore require a swift, affordable and – as far as possible – predictable litigation procedure. This comes occasionally at the expense of oral proceedings but arguably allows for a more efficient and prompt administration of justice. The new procedural system may seem promising, but it is up to the court to prove whether it can ultimately meet these high expectations.

By Sophia Ampoulidou, Partner, Drakopoulos Law Firm

This article was originally published in Issue 3.6 of the CEE Legal Matters Magazine. If you would like to receive a hard copy of the magazine, you can subscribe here.