A Greek buyer stops paying and the invoice sits without resolution. Debt collection in Greece runs through a defined sequence of demand, verification and, where justified, court action. It is not automatic and it is not immediate. We assess the file before recommending which stage is worth funding, and we say so when a claim is not worth pursuing.
Recovery in Greece typically begins with a formal demand addressed to the debtor, setting out the amount owed, the underlying invoices and a deadline to respond. Some debtors settle at this stage once they see the claim documented clearly and understand that litigation is a realistic next step. Others engage in negotiation, proposing a payment plan or a partial settlement that the creditor can accept or reject. If the debtor does not respond at all, or rejects the claim outright, the matter moves toward litigation before the competent Greek court.
Litigation itself is not a single event but a sequence: filing the claim, serving the debtor, awaiting a defence if one is filed, and obtaining a judgment once the court has ruled. A judgment is not the end of the process. Enforcement against the debtor's identified assets is a separate stage, with its own procedure and its own cost, and it only makes commercial sense once assets have actually been located. Each of these stages carries a decision point for the client, which is why we treat the sequence as a set of separate funding decisions rather than one continuous engagement. Our cross-border debt recovery work applies the same staged assessment in Greece as in any other jurisdiction we cover.
Greek procedure also allows a creditor, in appropriate cases, to apply for measures that preserve the debtor's assets while the claim is pending, before any final judgment is issued. This step exists to stop a debtor moving assets out of reach during litigation. It is assessed separately from the substantive claim, because the evidence required to obtain it differs from the evidence required to win the case itself.
At each stage the client faces the same question: is the next step worth funding given what is now known about the debtor. A demand costs little to send. Litigation and enforcement cost considerably more, and the decision to proceed with either belongs to the client, informed by our assessment rather than made in advance on the client's behalf.
Greek courts look first at the paper trail behind the debt: the underlying contract or purchase order, the invoice itself, proof of delivery or performance, and any written acknowledgement from the debtor. A signed delivery note, a countersigned purchase order or an email in which the debtor accepts the goods or services carries more weight than the invoice alone. Payment history also matters. A debtor who paid earlier invoices without objection, then stopped paying, presents a different case from one who disputed the relationship from the outset.
A debtor who disputes the goods or services received turns a straightforward payment claim into a contested dispute. That shift changes both the cost and the realistic timeline of the file. Common defences include an allegation that the goods were non-conforming, a claim of set-off against a separate transaction, or an objection to the jurisdiction of the Greek court itself. None of these defences automatically defeats the claim, but each one requires evidence to answer, and that evidence has to exist before the case is filed, not after.
For an exporter, the paper trail often includes shipping documents alongside the commercial contract: the bill of lading, the packing list and any signed proof of delivery at the debtor's premises. These documents matter because a Greek debtor disputing an international sale frequently argues that the goods never arrived in the condition invoiced. A complete shipping record answers that argument directly.
We review this material before advising on the route. A weak paper trail changes the recommendation regardless of the amount owed, and a strong one can justify litigation even on a modest claim. No assessment we give treats the invoice value as the only variable that matters.
Pre-legal collection and court representation in Greece are handled by admitted lawyers and licensed providers in the jurisdiction concerned. SOLUTIO does not carry out enforcement steps itself and does not appear before Greek courts; the local correspondent does that work under its own professional responsibility. A limitation period applies to commercial claims in Greece, and for cross-border invoices it is often shorter than a business expects. We confirm the applicable period against the statute before recommending any route, because a claim filed after the period has run is lost regardless of its merits.
Greece is a member state of the European Union. A judgment obtained there can move through the same cross-border enforcement framework as any other EU judgment, without a fresh trial on the merits in the enforcing state. The same applies in reverse to a judgment obtained elsewhere in the Union and enforced in Greece. This framework does not remove the need to identify assets, and it does not shorten the litigation stage itself; it only affects what happens once a judgment already exists.
Greek civil procedure also distinguishes between claims handled under a simplified track and those requiring the ordinary procedure, and the choice affects both the pace of the case and the evidence the court expects. Court timelines vary with the caseload of the specific court and with whether the debtor contests the claim at every stage available. We do not quote a fixed duration for a Greek case, because none applies uniformly, and a figure offered without that qualification misleads a creditor more than it informs one. The fee basis for the local work is agreed with the client before instruction, set out in writing and kept separate from our own assessment fee. For the country context behind these points, see our Greece country reference.
We assess the claim first: the paper trail, the debtor's likely position and the assets that can realistically be reached. We decide with the client which stage is worth funding, and only then do we instruct a local correspondent. That correspondent is chosen for a track record with claims of this kind, not because it is the least expensive option available, and its fee is agreed before the work begins.
Once instructed, the correspondent files the claim, represents the creditor before the Greek court, and carries out enforcement against identified assets once a judgment has been obtained. The correspondent handles the procedural detail: service on the debtor, filings within the court's own deadlines and any hearing the case requires. We remain the point of contact for the client throughout, translate developments into a plain report, and flag the moment a further decision is needed.
This division of labour exists because a creditor outside Greece needs one point of contact in one language, not a set of unfamiliar procedural updates from a foreign court system. The correspondent's technical qualification handles the Greek side of the file; our assessment and reporting handle the client side of it, and neither substitutes for the other.
We turn down a Greek collection file, or advise against escalating one, in cases that share the same pattern:
No party other than an admitted Greek lawyer can represent a creditor before a Greek court. A foreign creditor instructs local counsel for the litigation stage while we manage the assessment and the file. Correspondence and a formal demand before litigation do not require local representation.
A disputed invoice turns the matter into a contested claim rather than a straightforward payment case. The court then examines the contract, the delivery record and the correspondence between the parties. We reassess the file at that point, because a dispute changes both the cost and the realistic outcome.
It depends on the debtor's assets and on the strength of the paper trail, not on the invoice amount alone. A modest claim with a clear delivery record and an identifiable asset can be worth pursuing. A larger claim with a weak paper trail and no visible assets often is not.
For an exporter, the invoice and the shipment are already behind, and the open question is which recovery route in Greece is worth funding rather than whether one exists. Choosing the wrong stage before the claim has been properly assessed adds cost without adding certainty. That choice becomes difficult to reverse once local counsel has already been instructed on the file.