A foreign technology company enters the Greek market through a distribution agreement. Six months later, it receives a dawn raid notice from the Epitropi Antagonismou (Hellenic Competition Commission). Its conduct – price coordination with a local partner – was never flagged internally as a compliance issue. The fines that follow can represent a significant share of annual Greek turnover. For businesses operating in or expanding into Greece, the risk of inaction on competition law compliance is real, immediate, and expensive.
Competition law compliance in Greece is governed by Greek competition legislation, which mirrors EU competition rules and is enforced by the Hellenic Competition Commission. Obligations cover prohibition of anticompetitive agreements, prevention of market dominance abuse, and pre-merger notification where turnover thresholds are met. Businesses must identify their exposure, document their compliance measures, and act before an investigation begins – not after.
This guide walks through the procedural requirements, step-by-step compliance timeline, common errors made by foreign clients, cost considerations, and a decision checklist for different business scenarios in Greece.
Understanding the regulatory environment for competition in Greece
Greek competition legislation creates a two-level enforcement system. At the national level, the Hellenic Competition Commission – an independent administrative authority – investigates, adjudicates, and sanctions anticompetitive conduct. At the EU level, the European Commission retains concurrent jurisdiction for conduct affecting trade between EU member states.
The core prohibitions in Greek competition law address three categories of conduct. First, anticompetitive agreements between undertakings: price-fixing, market allocation, output restrictions, and bid-rigging. Second, abuse of market dominance by an undertaking that holds a dominant position in a defined product or geographic market. Third, concentrations – mergers and acquisitions – that meet notification thresholds and must be cleared before completion.
Greek competition legislation is closely aligned with EU competition rules. The Hellenic Competition Commission applies both the national body of law and, where interstate trade is affected, directly applicable EU competition provisions. This dual application means that a business investigated in Greece may simultaneously face scrutiny at the EU level.
A practical distinction matters for foreign businesses. Greek courts – including the Efeteio (Court of Appeal) and the Areios Pagos (Supreme Civil and Criminal Court of Greece) – handle private enforcement actions arising from competition law infringements. A finding by the Hellenic Competition Commission creates a strong evidentiary foundation for follow-on civil claims. An international business that assumes a regulatory fine ends the matter is frequently surprised by subsequent damages litigation initiated by harmed competitors or customers.
The Hellenic Competition Commission has expanded its enforcement priorities in recent years. Sectors receiving sustained attention include retail supply chains, energy markets, digital platforms, and professional services. Businesses in these sectors should treat competition compliance as an active, ongoing obligation rather than a background administrative task.
Step-by-step compliance procedure: from self-assessment to ongoing monitoring
Effective competition law compliance in Greece follows a structured sequence. Each step builds on the previous one. Skipping a stage – particularly the self-assessment phase – is the single most common error made by international companies entering the Greek market.
Step 1: Market position assessment (weeks 1–3)
Begin by mapping the company's position in each relevant Greek market. Identify product markets, geographic markets, and the company's estimated market share in each. Market dominance is not defined by a fixed threshold, but a significant market share – particularly when combined with barriers to entry, buyer dependence, or vertical integration – creates enhanced compliance obligations. A business with market dominance faces stricter rules on pricing, access terms, and dealings with competitors and customers.
This assessment should also identify any existing agreements – distribution, supply, licensing, joint venture – that may contain clauses raising competition law concerns. Resale price maintenance, territorial restrictions, and exclusivity arrangements each carry specific risk profiles under Greek competition legislation.
Step 2: Agreement audit and risk classification (weeks 3–6)
Review all commercial agreements involving Greek counterparties or affecting the Greek market. Classify each agreement by risk level: low (block exemption likely to apply), medium (requires specific legal analysis), or high (potentially prohibited without exemption). Greek competition legislation incorporates EU block exemption regulations for vertical agreements, technology transfer, and research and development. An agreement that falls within a block exemption is lawful without individual notification.
Document the outcome of this classification. If a high-risk agreement is identified, legal counsel should assess whether it qualifies for individual exemption – which requires meeting specific conditions under competition law – or whether it must be amended or terminated.
For businesses with dedicated competition law support in Greece, this audit typically takes four to six weeks for a mid-sized operation. Larger enterprises with complex distribution networks may require more time.
Step 3: Merger notification assessment (if applicable)
If the business is planning an acquisition, merger, or joint venture in Greece, the first question is whether the transaction meets the notification thresholds under Greek competition legislation. Thresholds are based on the combined Greek turnover of the parties involved. Where thresholds are met, notification to the Hellenic Competition Commission is mandatory before the transaction is completed.
Filing an incomplete or inaccurate notification resets the review period and may attract procedural penalties. Completing a transaction without notification – where notification was required – exposes the parties to fines and potential unwinding orders. The merger notification process involves submitting a prescribed form, supporting documentation on the parties' activities and market positions, and, where required, remedies proposals if competitive concerns are identified.
Phase I review typically concludes within 25 working days of a complete filing. Phase II is triggered when the Hellenic Competition Commission identifies competition concerns requiring in-depth investigation. Phase II can extend to several months. Parties should build these timelines into transaction planning from the outset.
Step 4: Cartel exposure check and leniency programme assessment
If internal review reveals past or ongoing participation in a cartel. price-fixing, bid-rigging, market allocation, or exchange of commercially sensitive information with competitors – the leniency programme available under Greek competition legislation becomes immediately relevant. The leniency programme offers full or partial immunity from fines in exchange for cooperation, evidence, and complete disclosure to the Hellenic Competition Commission.
Timing is critical. The first applicant with qualifying information typically receives the strongest protection. Subsequent applicants receive reduced fine reductions. Delay forfeits the leniency advantage. Any business that identifies cartel exposure through an internal audit should seek legal advice immediately – not after gathering further internal evidence, which itself carries legal risk.
Step 5: Internal compliance programme design (weeks 6–10)
A documented compliance programme serves two functions. It reduces the probability of violations occurring. It also demonstrates to the Hellenic Competition Commission – and to courts in follow-on litigation – that the business took active steps to prevent infringement. The programme should cover: written competition compliance policy, training for commercial and procurement staff, a process for legal review of agreements and commercial practices, and a reporting mechanism for employees to flag potential concerns.
Training is often the weakest element of compliance programmes built by foreign companies in Greece. Employees need jurisdiction-specific guidance, not generic EU competition summaries. Greek-language materials and scenario-based training covering local market practices are more effective than translated policy documents.
Step 6: Ongoing monitoring and annual review
Competition compliance is not a one-time exercise. Greek competition legislation evolves through amendments, new Hellenic Competition Commission guidelines, and EU regulatory developments. Annual review of the compliance programme – including re-assessment of market position, agreement audit, and training refresh – is the standard expected of well-governed enterprises. Triggering events – such as a change in market share, a new distribution agreement, or entry into a new product market – should prompt an off-cycle review.
For a comparative perspective on compliance obligations in a neighbouring EU jurisdiction. Practitioners may find value in reviewing our guide to competition law compliance in Portugal. This highlights both the common EU baseline and the procedural differences between national regimes.
To receive an expert assessment of your competition law compliance position in Greece, contact us at info@ferrazwhitmore.com.
Common errors by foreign clients and their consequences
International businesses entering Greece make a recognisable set of competition law errors. Each carries a specific consequence. Understanding them in advance is the most effective form of risk management.
Treating Greek law as identical to EU law. Greek competition legislation tracks EU competition rules closely but is not identical. The Hellenic Competition Commission applies national procedural rules, national turnover thresholds for merger notification, and national fine calculation methodologies. A business that relies solely on its EU compliance programme – without adapting it to Greek requirements – will have gaps.
Assuming that market share below dominance thresholds means no risk. The prohibition on anticompetitive agreements applies regardless of market share. A small distributor that agrees with a competitor not to poach each other's customers has engaged in a cartel – even if neither party holds market dominance. This error is common among businesses that focus compliance resources exclusively on their dominant-position analysis.
Failing to notify a qualifying merger. Many foreign acquirers calculate Greek notification thresholds using consolidated global figures and conclude no notification is required. The correct analysis uses Greek turnover specifically. A transaction with modest global value can meet Greek thresholds if the target has material Greek revenues. Completing the transaction without notification exposes both parties to fines and, in principle, to unwinding.
Mishandling a dawn raid. The Hellenic Competition Commission has the authority to conduct unannounced inspections. Employees without training on how to respond. who to contact, what to say, what not to say. Additionally. What documents may be requested. can inadvertently obstruct the inspection or make admissions that damage the company's legal position. Dawn raid response protocols are a basic element of any competition compliance programme in Greece.
Selective disclosure in leniency applications. Executives sometimes attempt to obtain leniency protection while withholding information they consider too damaging. The Hellenic Competition Commission requires complete and continuous cooperation. Selective disclosure typically results in reduced or no immunity – leaving the applicant exposed to the full range of fines. This is one of the most consequential errors in Greek competition enforcement practice.
Businesses facing disputes that arise from competition law violations – including follow-on damages claims – should also review the procedural options available through corporate disputes counsel in Greece.
Self-assessment checklist and decision framework
The following checklist supports a structured first assessment of competition law compliance obligations in Greece. It is not a substitute for legal advice, but it identifies the key decision points for different business scenarios.
Preliminary questions – applicable to all market participants:
- Does the company sell goods or services in Greece, or does its conduct affect the Greek market?
- Does the company hold a significant market share in any defined Greek product or geographic market?
- Does the company have distribution, supply, or licensing agreements with Greek counterparties?
- Has the company recently completed or is it currently planning an acquisition in Greece?
- Has any employee participated in discussions with competitors about pricing, customers, or territories?
If any answer is yes, a structured compliance review is warranted. The depth of review depends on the specific exposure identified.
Scenario A – Market entry without dominance: The business is entering Greece for the first time with no existing market share. Priority is agreement audit and training. Timeline: four to six weeks for a standard compliance programme. Cost: legal fees in the range of thousands of euros, depending on the complexity of the distribution structure.
Scenario B – Established business with significant market share: The business holds a position that may constitute market dominance under Greek competition legislation. Priority is dominance assessment, review of pricing and access terms, and documentation of any refusal-to-deal decisions. An ongoing monitoring mechanism is essential. Timeline: six to ten weeks for initial assessment. Annual review thereafter.
Scenario C – Acquisition target or acquirer in Greece: Priority is merger notification threshold analysis before signing. If thresholds are met, filing must occur before closing. Build 25 working days for Phase I – and potentially several months for Phase II – into the transaction timeline. Failure to do so creates deal certainty risk.
Scenario D – Internal cartel discovery: Priority is immediate legal advice on leniency programme eligibility. Do not conduct further internal investigation without legal oversight. Do not communicate with co-participants. Every day of delay reduces the leniency advantage. This scenario requires the fastest response of any compliance situation.
The trigger for escalating from one scenario to another is a change in market conditions. If a business in Scenario A acquires a competitor and moves to a dominant position, Scenario B obligations arise immediately. If pricing discussions with a competitor occur during a trade association meeting, Scenario D protocol should be activated that day.
To explore legal options for managing your competition law exposure in Greece, schedule a consultation at info@ferrazwhitmore.com.
Frequently asked questions
Q: How long does the Hellenic Competition Commission take to review a merger notification?
A: The Hellenic Competition Commission operates under defined Phase I and Phase II review periods. Phase I typically concludes within 25 working days of a complete filing. Phase II investigations can extend to several months when competitive concerns require in-depth examination. Filing an incomplete notification resets the clock, so document preparation is critical before submission.
Q: Can a business outside Greece be caught by Greek competition law?
A: Yes. Greek competition legislation, aligned with EU competition rules, applies to conduct that has an effect on the Greek market regardless of where the undertaking is established. A foreign company whose pricing, distribution, or acquisition activity affects Greek consumers or competitors may be subject to investigation and fines by the Hellenic Competition Commission.
Q: What is a common misconception about the leniency programme in Greece?
A: Many executives assume that partial disclosure – revealing some cartel conduct while withholding other elements – will still attract full leniency protection. In practice, the Hellenic Competition Commission requires complete and continuous cooperation. Partial or selective disclosure typically results in reduced immunity or no immunity at all, leaving the applicant exposed to the full range of fines.
About Ferraz & Whitmore
Ferraz & Whitmore is an international law firm based in Lisbon, advising business clients across 46 jurisdictions. Our competition law practice supports international companies operating in Greece and across European markets – covering cartel investigations, merger notification, market dominance analysis, and the design of internal compliance programmes. We combine Portuguese civil law expertise with English common law tradition to deliver cross-border competition law solutions tailored to businesses operating across multiple legal systems. Engaging a lawyer in Greece with cross-border experience is essential when conduct spans EU and national jurisdictions – our team works directly with local Greek counsel to provide coordinated, results-oriented advice. As an international law firm serving Greece, we assist entrepreneurs, institutional investors, and in-house legal teams who need practical guidance rather than generic compliance documentation. To discuss your competition law compliance position, contact us at info@ferrazwhitmore.com.
Disclaimer: This publication is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The information herein should not be relied upon as a substitute for professional legal counsel tailored to your specific circumstances. Ferraz & Whitmore assumes no liability for actions taken or not taken based on the contents of this material. For advice regarding your particular situation, please contact info@ferrazwhitmore.com.