How to Sue a Foreign Company in Greece (2026): Service, Jurisdiction, Poas and Practical Steps

Last updated: 2026

To sue a foreign company in Greece, claimants must satisfy a jurisdictional nexus, navigate cross-border service, and prepare a valid foreign power of attorney. This guide gives you the practical answer up front: yes, you can usually sue a foreign company in Greece if a jurisdictional basis exists, through domicile or establishment in Greece, a contractual or tort link, or applicable EU rules, and here is exactly how to do it. What follows is a process-driven playbook, not a high-level overview, complete with a decision table and checklists. Where speed matters, we flag the urgent actions clearly.

Can you sue a foreign company in Greece?

The short answer is yes, provided the Greek courts have jurisdiction over the dispute or the defendant. Greek courts do not exercise jurisdiction merely because a claimant wishes to litigate at home; there must be a recognised connecting factor. For defendants domiciled in the European Union, jurisdiction is governed primarily by the EU regime (Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012, the Brussels I Recast framework), which sets out where a company may be sued. For defendants outside the EU, the Greek Code of Civil Procedure supplies the domestic bases of jurisdiction.

The most common bases on which international claimants sue foreign company defendants in Greece are: the defendant is domiciled or has a branch, agency or establishment in Greece; the contract in dispute was to be performed in Greece; the harmful event in a tort claim occurred in Greece; the parties agreed to Greek courts in a forum-selection clause; or the defendant has assets in Greece that may ground a special head of jurisdiction. A separate route is not to sue at all in Greece but to obtain a judgment abroad and seek recognition and enforcement of that foreign judgment against Greek assets, a distinct process addressed later in this guide.

Jurisdictional tests: domestic law and EU rules

Where the defendant company is domiciled in an EU Member State, the Brussels I Recast rules apply and generally permit suit in the courts of the defendant’s domicile, at the place of performance of the contractual obligation, or at the place where the harmful event occurred. The Court of Justice of the European Union has produced extensive jurisprudence on how these connecting factors are interpreted, including on lis pendens where parallel proceedings run in two Member States. For non-EU defendants, the Greek Code of Civil Procedure governs, and jurisdiction may rest on a Greek establishment, on the place of contractual performance, or, in certain cases, on the location of assets.

Getting the jurisdictional analysis right at the outset is the single most important step, because a mistaken basis invites a jurisdictional objection that can derail the claim.

Forum-selection clauses and challenges

A clause nominating the Greek courts will normally be respected, and a clause nominating a foreign forum will normally be enforced against a claimant who tries to litigate in Greece. Within the EU, exclusive jurisdiction agreements enjoy strong protection under the Brussels I Recast framework. Challenges typically turn on the validity and scope of the clause, whether it was properly incorporated, whether it covers the claim asserted, and whether any mandatory protective jurisdiction rules override it. Verify the clause before filing.

Service of process in Greece: EU, Hague and local routes

Once jurisdiction is established, the claim must be served on the foreign defendant. Service-of-process practice in Greece depends entirely on where the defendant sits, and each route carries different formalities, translation requirements and timeframes. Getting service wrong is a leading cause of delay and of setting-aside applications, so plan the route before drafting.

Service within the EU (Regulation on service of documents)

Where the defendant is in another EU Member State, service is governed by the EU service regime. The current instrument is Regulation (EU) 2020/1784, which replaced Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007. Transmission runs between designated agencies in each Member State. The claimant’s Greek lawyer transmits the documents to the receiving agency in the defendant’s state, which effects service under its own law and returns a certificate of service. Translations into an official language of the receiving state (or a language the addressee understands) are generally required to avoid the addressee refusing acceptance.

The intra-EU route is more streamlined than the Hague route, but timing still varies by destination and by the receiving agency’s workload; claimants should budget several weeks and build in margin for refusal-and-retranslation cycles.

Service under the Hague Service Convention

For defendants in non-EU states that are contracting parties to the Hague Service Convention of 1965, service proceeds through the Central Authority of the destination state. The Greek lawyer prepares the request, the documents to be served, and a translation as required, and transmits them to the destination Central Authority, which arranges service and returns a certificate. Some destination states permit alternative channels, postal service or direct instruction of a local agent, but only where that state has not objected to those methods. The Hague route is reliable but slower; central-authority processing commonly runs to several months, and claimants who need urgency should not rely on completed service before seeking interim protection.

Diplomatic, consular and local process servers

Where neither the EU regime nor the Hague Convention applies, service may proceed through diplomatic or consular channels, or through a local process server in the destination state where permitted. These routes are typically the slowest and most formal, and they are used when no faster mechanism is available. Always confirm the destination state’s rules before choosing this path.

Non-appearance and safeguards

Where a defendant evades service, Greek procedure and the applicable international instruments provide mechanisms to proceed notwithstanding non-appearance, subject to safeguards protecting the defendant’s right to be heard. If assets are at risk, do not wait for completed service, apply for provisional measures in parallel.

Power of attorney and representation: using foreign POAs to sue a foreign company in Greece

International claimants generally cannot appear before Greek courts in person; they must instruct a Greek-qualified lawyer, and that lawyer must be authorised by a valid power of attorney. Because the claimant is abroad, the power of attorney is usually executed overseas, which triggers formality requirements. A power of attorney’s validity in Greece depends on proper notarisation, legalisation and translation, errors here routinely stall otherwise strong claims.

Is a US power of attorney valid in Greece?

A US, or other foreign, power of attorney can be used in Greek proceedings, but only when it has been put into acceptable form. The standard chain is: the document is executed before a notary; it is then apostilled under the Hague Apostille Convention of 1961 (where both states are parties, which covers the United States and Greece); and it is accompanied by a certified translation into Greek. The Greek court and the instructed lawyer will check that the power grants sufficient authority to conduct the specific litigation, including any special authority required for particular steps. Where a state is not party to the Apostille Convention, consular legalisation is required instead of an apostille.

Practical steps to prepare a litigating POA

Prepare the power of attorney early, it is a common bottleneck. Ensure the signatory has corporate authority to bind the claimant; verify the signature before the notary; confirm the apostille is affixed by the competent authority; and obtain a certified Greek translation of both the power and the apostille. Confirm the document expressly authorises commencing proceedings, service, provisional-measure applications and enforcement, so that no further authorisation is needed mid-case. Greek courts increasingly accommodate electronic filing and remote steps, but the underlying authorisation chain remains essential.

Provisional measures and emergency relief

For many international claimants the decisive question is whether they can freeze or preserve assets before a defendant dissipates them. The practical takeaway for a claimant seeking to sue a foreign company in Greece is that interim protection over assets located in Greece can be pursued swiftly, and should be pursued in parallel with, not after, the main claim where assets are at risk.

Types of provisional measures

Under the Greek Code of Civil Procedure, courts can grant a range of interim measures, including conservatory attachment (seizure) over the defendant’s movable and immovable property, judicial sequestration, and prohibitory or mandatory injunctions. Functionally, these can achieve outcomes comparable to freezing relief by tying up identified Greek-situated assets pending final judgment. The measure chosen depends on the asset type and on the risk profile of the defendant.

Procedure and evidentiary standard

Provisional measures are applied for on an expedited basis. Where dissipation is imminent, a temporary restraining order can be sought at the point of filing, and in appropriate cases the court may act without prior notice to the defendant, followed by a fuller hearing. The claimant must show, to the standard applicable to interim relief, both an arguable substantive claim and urgency or risk to the eventual satisfaction of the claim. Cross-border cases raise notice and coordination issues. If assets are at imminent risk, apply for provisional measures now rather than waiting for service of the main claim to complete.

Interaction with asset tracing and provisional enforcement

Provisional measures are most effective when paired with asset tracing: identify Greek bank accounts, real estate, shareholdings or receivables before you file, so the application targets specific assets. A well-targeted attachment secures value that can later be executed against once judgment is obtained, bridging the gap between provisional protection and final enforcement.

Commencing proceedings and key procedural steps

Commencing proceedings in Greece against a foreign defendant follows a structured sequence. The claim is initiated by a statement of claim setting out the facts, the legal basis, the relief sought and the jurisdictional grounds, supported by documentary evidence. Court fees are payable, translations of foreign-language documents are required, and the claim must then be served by the applicable route. The defendant is given a period to respond, and may raise jurisdictional objections that must be addressed.

Typical timetable and checklist

A realistic timetable for a cross-border claim reflects the added layers of service abroad and translation. Expect: drafting and evidence-gathering at the outset; preparation and legalisation of the power of attorney in parallel; filing and payment of court fees; service abroad (weeks for the EU route, months for the Hague route); the defendant’s response window; and, where interim protection is needed, a separate expedited provisional-measures track running alongside. Build slack into every stage that depends on a foreign authority.

Evidence preservation and disclosure in Greece

Greek civil procedure does not feature broad common-law-style discovery. Claimants should therefore preserve their own evidence carefully and consider procedural mechanisms to secure documents or testimony where there is a risk of loss. Foreign-language evidence generally must be translated for use in court. Because you cannot rely on expansive disclosure from the opponent, front-load your evidence strategy before filing.

Enforcement and cross-border execution

A judgment is only as valuable as its enforceability. Where a claimant obtains a Greek judgment, it can be executed against the defendant’s assets in Greece and, subject to recognition, against assets in other states under EU regimes or applicable treaties. Conversely, foreign judgments and arbitral awards can be recognised and enforced in Greece, arbitral awards through the New York Convention framework, and judgments through the applicable EU or domestic recognition rules.

Enforcing orders against foreign-owned assets in Greece

Enforcement against Greek-situated assets of a foreign company is one of the strongest reasons to litigate, or at least to seek provisional measures, in Greece. Once a claimant has an enforceable title, execution can proceed against identified Greek real estate, bank accounts, receivables and shareholdings. This is why asset location so heavily influences the choice of forum.

Obtaining pre-judgment security

Pre-judgment security is achieved through the provisional-measures regime discussed above. A conservatory attachment obtained early preserves the target asset so that, when final judgment arrives, there is something to execute against. For international claimants, sequencing matters: secure first, litigate the merits second, enforce third.

Costs, counsel and realistic timelines

Budgeting realistically is essential before you decide to sue a foreign company in Greece. The overall cost of a cross-border commercial claim in Greece combines lawyers’ fees, court fees, and disbursements for service abroad and translation, and the international dimension inflates the last two categories relative to a purely domestic dispute.

Typical fee structures and disbursements

Greek litigators may work on a retainer plus hourly basis, on fixed fees for defined stages, or with a success-related element, within the bounds of the professional rules under the Greek Lawyers’ Code (Law 4194/2013) and the oversight of the bar associations. For a commercial claim of significant value, an international claimant should budget for counsel’s fees across the phases of drafting, provisional measures, the main hearing and enforcement, plus court fees calculated by reference to the claim, plus material disbursements for certified translations and for service through the EU or Hague channels. Translation and foreign-service costs are frequently underestimated and should be scoped early with local counsel.

How to choose local counsel

Choose a Greek litigator with demonstrable cross-border experience, capacity to act quickly on provisional measures, and a working command of the service and POA formalities that trip up foreign claimants. Agree the fee structure and a phase budget in writing at the outset, and confirm the lawyer will handle translation and service logistics.

Sue in Greece or sue in the defendant’s home jurisdiction? A decision table

The central strategic question is whether to sue in Greece or in the defendant’s home state. Our position is clear: sue in Greece when the recoverable assets, key evidence or the need for urgent interim relief are located in Greece; sue in the defendant’s jurisdiction when its domicile gives cleaner jurisdiction and the assets you ultimately need to reach sit outside Greece. The table below sets out the trade-offs so you can apply that rule to your facts.

Decision framework

Apply the following:

• Choose to sue in Greece when key assets, witnesses or evidence are in Greece; you need urgent provisional measures over Greek assets; the defendant has a Greek establishment; or the parties contractually agreed to Greek courts.
• Choose to sue in the defendant’s jurisdiction when the defendant’s domicile provides clearer jurisdiction, most recoverable assets sit outside Greece, or the service and POA complexity would cause unacceptable delay or cost.

Step-by-step checklist and sample templates

Use the following numbered checklist as a working map from pre-suit steps through to enforcement. All templates referenced are samples, confirm content with Greek counsel before use.

Pre-suit steps: trace assets and preserve evidence

1. Trace and locate the defendant’s Greek assets, real estate, bank accounts, shareholdings and receivables.
2. Preserve your own documentary and electronic evidence, and secure any at-risk third-party evidence.
3. Confirm the jurisdictional basis and check any forum-selection clause.
4. Prepare and legalise the litigating power of attorney (notarise, apostille, translate).
5. Where assets face imminent dissipation, prepare a provisional-measures application immediately.

Filing and post-service steps

1. Draft and file the statement of claim with all annexes and pay court fees.
2. Select the service route, EU regime, Hague Convention, or diplomatic/consular, and arrange required translations.
3. Effect service and retain the certificate of service for the file and for enforcement.
4. Prepare for any jurisdictional objection and for the defendant’s response within the applicable period.
5. Run the provisional-measures track in parallel where interim protection is needed.
6. On judgment, proceed to execution against Greek assets, or to recognition and enforcement abroad as required.

Conclusion

The decision to sue a foreign company in Greece comes down to a disciplined sequence: confirm the jurisdictional basis, choose the correct service route, prepare a properly legalised power of attorney, and, where assets are exposed, secure provisional measures before, not after, the merits are litigated. The 2026 landscape favours claimants who move quickly to protect Greek-situated assets and who plan the cross-border formalities in advance. Our recommendation is straightforward: sue in Greece where the assets, evidence or need for urgent interim relief are here, and sue abroad where the defendant’s domicile and asset location point elsewhere.

Whichever path you choose, engage experienced Greek counsel early, budget realistically for translation and service, and treat every checklist and template in this guide as a starting point to be confirmed with a qualified litigator before you act.

Sources

1. EUR-Lex, Regulation (EU) 2020/1784 on the service of documents in civil or commercial matters
2. EUR-Lex, Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (Brussels I Recast) on jurisdiction and enforcement
3. Hague Conference on Private International Law, Service Convention (1965)
4. Hague Conference on Private International Law, Apostille Convention (1961)
5. Hellenic Republic, Ministry of Justice
6. Hellenic Government Gazette (Εφημερίδα της Κυβερνήσεως)
7. Athens Bar Association (Δικηγορικός Σύλλογος Αθηνών)
8. Court of Justice of the European Union (CURIA)
9. New York Convention, UNCITRAL