Serving Process on US Defendants in Greek Proceedings: A Case Law Survey
Posted on December 11, 2013
Contributor Apostolos Anthimos has a nuts-and-bolts post about Greek caselaw on the Hague Service Convention in US-related cases.
In my previous post, I presented two recent decisions of Greek courts on the application of the 1965 Hague Service Convention in Greece. Following that post and the release of my recent book on service of process abroad, I will now focus on reported case law regarding service of process on defendants in the United States in Greek proceedings.
Case Where Greek Courts Have Refused To Render Default Judgments
Greek courts have refused to render a default judgment under the following circumstances:
- When the claimant produces to the court only the certificate of service showing service on the competent (Greek) Public Prosecutor’s office. 1 (Supreme Court 250/1993, 657/1995, 835/2007, CoA Larissa 740/2008, CoA Patras 453/1993).
- When the claimant does not produce a certified translation of the US certificate of service, i.e., he only includes the original or a true copy with no Greek translation. (1st Instance Multi-Member Court Samos 25/2012).
- When the document reaches the US competent authority or the defendant after the day of the hearing. (CoA Athens 734/1992, 1st Instance Multi-Member Court Amfissa 105/1992).
- When domestic time limits for the appearance of the defendant before court have been violated. 2 In this case, even if the claimant produces the US certificate of service and a Greek translation attached, the hearing will be adjourned, and fresh service is required (Supreme Court 1566/2010).
- When the claimant surreptitiously opts for fictional service or service by publication, 3 without exploring the possibility of using conventional methods of service. (Supreme Court 503/2011 &, CoA Piraeus 730/2008). However, if the claimant exhausts conventional methods with no result, he’s allowed to proceed to the fictional service. (1st Instance Multi-Member Court Athens 449/2004). Hence, fictional service used after unsuccessful attempts at conventional service is legitimate (1st Instance Court Thessaloniki 38292/2009 & 20721/2010).
Case Where Greek Courts Have Rendered Default Judgments
On the other hand, Greek courts rendered a default judgment under the following circumstances:
- When six months have passed since the day of transmission, according to Article 15 ¶ 2(b) of the Service Convention, even if the document has been sent back to Greek channels as undeliverable. (Supreme Court 851/2007 & 433/2001).
- When the claimant opts for service based on US statutes (in application of Article 137 Greek CCivP, which allows this form of service). (CoA Athens 223/2012, see my previous post).
- When the claimant opts for service on a legally appointed proxy in Greece, thus avoiding service of process inthe US. (Supreme Court 909/2004, CoA Dodecanese 200/1998, CoA Larissa 474/2006).
Finally, as noted in my previous post, serving documents instituting first- and second-instance proceedings, or even proceedings in the Supreme Court, in within the field of application of the Service Convention, unlike serving other documents that do not institute a claim (summonses for sworn statements, writs of attachment, etc.), where domestic law prevails [Supreme Court 1658/2009, 266/2004, 1447/1988, CoA Dodecanese 81/2008 & 234/2005).
- According to Article 134 Greek CCivP, for the purposes of serving foreign defendants, documents are to be served on the Public Prosecutor of the competent court, who is entrusted with forwarding the document to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. From there, the document will be transmitted to the Receiving Agency of the respective country, for delivery to the defendant. ↩
- According to Article 229 of the Greek CCivP, the claim has to be served 90 days before the hearing. ↩
- According to Article 135 Greek CCivP, persons of unknown residence are to be served in a fashion similar to the particulars of Article 135 Greek CCivP, plus its publication in two newspapers (one in Athens, the capital, the second in the venue of the court). ↩