A multinational group enters the Greek market through an acquisition. The deal closes without a merger notification to the Hellenic Competition Commission. Six months later, the group faces an investigation, significant fines, and the potential unwinding of the transaction. This scenario repeats itself far more often than international counsel anticipate – because Greek competition law carries obligations and timelines that diverge meaningfully from what clients experience in their home jurisdictions.
Competition law in Greece is governed by both domestic competition legislation and directly applicable EU competition rules enforced in parallel. The Epitropi Antagonismou (Hellenic Competition Commission) is the primary enforcement authority, with powers to investigate cartels, abuse of market dominance, and transactions requiring merger notification. Businesses active in Greek markets must assess notification thresholds, prohibited conduct, and leniency eligibility before any strategic move.
This page covers the key instruments, procedural timelines, common pitfalls for international businesses, cross-border considerations involving EU law and Portugal, and a self-assessment checklist to determine when formal legal review is essential.
The Greek competition law system: regulatory foundation and enforcement authority
Greek competition legislation constitutes the principal domestic source of rules on anti-competitive agreements, abuse of dominant position, and merger control. This body of law operates alongside EU competition rules, which apply directly in Greece as a Member State of the European Union. Where a matter affects trade between EU Member States, both legal regimes apply concurrently.
The Hellenic Competition Commission functions as an independent administrative authority. It investigates suspected infringements, imposes fines, issues binding commitments decisions, and clears or conditions notified mergers. The Commission also cooperates closely with the European Commission through the European Competition Network. This cooperation affects procedural strategy: a case that begins at the domestic level may be reallocated to Brussels if the cross-border dimension is sufficiently significant.
Greek courts play a complementary role. Administrative courts review decisions of the Hellenic Competition Commission on appeal. Civil courts handle private enforcement claims – that is, actions for damages brought by parties harmed by anti-competitive conduct. The Areios Pagos (Supreme Civil and Criminal Court of Greece) sits at the apex of the civil enforcement hierarchy.
Practitioners in Greece note that the Commission has become markedly more active over the past decade. Sector-specific investigations – covering energy, retail, construction, and pharmaceuticals – have produced fines in the multi-million-euro range. Businesses that treat Greek competition enforcement as peripheral to their EU compliance programme do so at measurable financial and reputational risk.
What distinguishes the Greek system from several other EU Member States is the combination of an administratively robust regulator. A relatively concentrated economy with a limited number of dominant players in key sectors. Additionally, an active private litigation bar. An infringement finding by the Commission creates near-automatic evidential advantage for follow-on damages claimants in civil proceedings.
Key instruments: merger control, cartel investigations and dominance proceedings
Merger notification. Greek competition legislation establishes turnover-based thresholds that trigger a mandatory pre-merger notification obligation. Where the combined Greek turnover of the merging parties exceeds the prescribed threshold, the transaction may not be implemented until clearance is obtained. The notification must be filed before completion. Implementation prior to clearance – known as "gun-jumping" – constitutes a distinct infringement, subject to separate fines regardless of whether the underlying merger would have been cleared on its merits.
The Commission operates a standard Phase I review period of approximately 30 working days from the date a complete notification is accepted. If the Commission identifies serious doubts, it opens a Phase II investigation, which may extend the overall process by several additional months. International clients consistently underestimate how demanding the information requirements are for Phase I filings. Incomplete submissions restart the clock. Transactions with tight contractual completion dates are particularly exposed to this risk.
Where the transaction falls below Greek thresholds but meets EU thresholds, the European Commission has exclusive jurisdiction under the one-stop-shop principle. Where neither set of thresholds is met, parties should still assess whether the transaction produces any structural change in the Greek market capable of attracting voluntary scrutiny.
Cartel investigations. The Hellenic Competition Commission investigates horizontal agreements between competitors – price-fixing, market allocation, output limitation, and bid-rigging. Investigations may be triggered by complaints, leniency applications, sector inquiries, or referrals from the European Commission. Dawn raids – unannounced on-site inspections conducted under statutory authority – are a standard investigative tool. Businesses subject to a dawn raid have limited procedural rights to delay access. The practical consequence is that response protocols must be prepared well in advance, not during the inspection itself.
Fines for cartel infringements are calculated as a percentage of annual Greek turnover in the affected market, subject to aggravating factors such as duration and leadership role. The maximum base fine under Greek competition legislation is substantial. Recidivism significantly increases the multiplier applied. For a mid-sized business, a cartel fine can reach an amount that threatens solvency.
The leniency programme operated by the Hellenic Competition Commission mirrors the EU model. A cartel participant who is the first to provide information enabling the Commission to conduct a targeted inspection. Alternatively. The first to provide evidence confirming an already suspected infringement, may obtain full immunity from fines or a material reduction. The programme is available only to participants who approach the Commission before a formal investigation is opened or, in a reduction scenario, before the statement of objections is issued. Timing is critical: a second applicant obtains a lesser reduction than the first. A third applicant obtains a still smaller benefit. Clients who delay approaching the Commission while seeking internal approval risk losing their place in the queue entirely.
Abuse of dominance proceedings. A business holds a dominant position in Greece when it can act to an appreciable extent independently of competitors, customers, and consumers. Market dominance is not itself prohibited. What Greek and EU competition legislation prohibit are abusive behaviours: predatory pricing, margin squeezing, tying, refusal to supply, and exclusionary rebate schemes, among others. The Commission may open a dominance investigation on its own initiative or in response to a complaint by a market participant.
In abuse of dominance cases, the evidentiary burden on the investigating authority is higher than in cartel cases, because the authority must establish both market power and the abusive character of the conduct. Dominant businesses in Greece should maintain contemporaneous documentation of the commercial rationale for pricing decisions and supply policies. After-the-fact explanations carry less weight before the Commission and before courts in follow-on proceedings.
For a comprehensive view of related corporate exposure in the Greek market, see our service on corporate disputes in Greece, which addresses shareholders, governance liability, and enforcement proceedings that frequently accompany competition investigations.
To discuss how Greek competition law applies to a planned transaction or existing commercial arrangement, contact us at info@ferrazwhitmore.com.
Practical pitfalls for international businesses operating in Greece
The most persistent mistake made by international groups entering Greece is the assumption that EU-level competition compliance programmes automatically satisfy domestic Greek requirements. They do not. Greek competition legislation imposes independent obligations on domestic turnover and on conduct occurring within Greek territory. A group that has cleared a pan-European transaction at the European Commission level may still face a Greek filing obligation if the Greek-market turnover thresholds are separately exceeded.
A second common error involves franchise and distribution networks. International businesses establishing exclusive or selective distribution arrangements in Greece must assess whether those agreements comply with the applicable block exemption rules as implemented in the Greek legal order. Arrangements that fall outside block exemption protection require individual assessment. Many clients assume that arrangements compliant in their home jurisdiction – particularly common law jurisdictions operating under different contractual traditions – are automatically lawful in Greece. This assumption is incorrect.
The gap between formal deadlines and practical timelines also catches clients by surprise. The Commission's Phase I review period of approximately 30 working days begins only once a filing is deemed complete. In practice, the Commission frequently requests substantial supplementary information before accepting a notification as complete. This preliminary exchange can add four to eight weeks to the overall process before the formal clock even starts. Transactions with locked completion dates must build this contingency into deal timelines at the term sheet stage, not after signing.
A further non-obvious risk arises from minority shareholdings. Greek competition legislation – consistent with EU merger regulation principles – may capture acquisitions of minority stakes that confer decisive influence or the ability to block strategic decisions, even without majority control. International clients accustomed to share-purchase transactions structured below notification thresholds in other jurisdictions may overlook this point.
Businesses under investigation by the Commission face significant document preservation obligations from the moment they receive any indication of interest from the authority. Failure to preserve documents – or active destruction of records after a suspicion of investigation arises – constitutes a separate infringement and attracts separate fines. Compliance teams must activate litigation hold procedures at the earliest signal, including market intelligence that suggests a competitor has filed a leniency application.
Cross-border strategy: EU competition law, Portugal, and enforcement sequencing
Greece sits within the EU competition enforcement system, which means that the Hellenic Competition Commission and the European Commission may both have jurisdiction over the same conduct. Where a cartel or dominance case affects trade between Member States. a low threshold in practice. the European Commission may either handle the investigation centrally or allocate it to one or more national competition authorities. The allocation decision is not publicly announced in advance. Parties cannot predict at the outset whether a matter will remain in Athens or migrate to Brussels.
This uncertainty has direct strategic consequences for leniency applicants. A business with exposure across multiple EU Member States should consider filing parallel leniency applications at the European Commission and at each potentially affected national competition authority simultaneously. Greek leniency protection does not extend to proceedings before the European Commission, and vice versa. Missing a national filing while concentrating on the Brussels application can leave a business exposed to a full fine at the domestic level.
For clients with operations in both Greece and Portugal, the interaction between the two legal systems is particularly relevant in the context of pan-European distribution agreements and joint ventures. Both jurisdictions transpose EU competition law into their domestic legal orders, but the enforcement priorities, procedural timelines, and practical leniency dynamics differ. A competition strategy that works efficiently in Portugal may require material adjustment for the Greek market. Our analysis of competition law in Portugal sets out the Portuguese framework in detail and can be read alongside this page to support a comparative assessment.
Private enforcement is a growing dimension of Greek competition law. Following the transposition of the EU Damages Directive into Greek law, claimants harmed by cartel or dominance infringements have access to a strengthened set of procedural tools, including disclosure mechanisms and a presumption of harm. Follow-on damages actions in Greece are now more viable than they were five years ago. Businesses that have been subject to a Commission infringement decision should assess their exposure to civil claims promptly – limitation periods are finite and begin to run from the date the infringement decision becomes final.
The bilateral lens matters here. A client operating between a common law home jurisdiction and the Greek civil law system will find that procedural assumptions around disclosure, expert evidence, and burden of proof differ substantially. Greek civil procedure does not replicate the broad pre-trial discovery available in English or US litigation. This affects both offensive strategies – where a claimant seeks damages – and defensive strategies, where a defendant seeks to limit the documents available to the opposing party.
For clients considering market entry structures in Greece, our detailed guide to company formation in Greece provides the corporate and regulatory foundation that complements competition law compliance planning.
For a tailored strategy on competition law compliance and merger notification in Greece, reach out to info@ferrazwhitmore.com.
Self-assessment checklist: when formal competition law review is required
Greek competition law review is applicable if any of the following conditions are present:
- The combined Greek turnover of the merging parties approaches or exceeds the domestic merger notification thresholds.
- The business holds or may hold a dominant position in a Greek product or geographic market.
- Distribution, franchise, or licensing agreements with Greek counterparties contain exclusivity, price-setting, or market-restriction clauses.
- The business has received a request for information, an inspection notice, or any informal communication from the Hellenic Competition Commission.
- A competitor or supplier is known or suspected to have filed a leniency application in Greece or at the European Commission in a matter affecting the Greek market.
Before initiating any competition law procedure in Greece, verify the following critical items:
- Turnover figures for all entities involved in the transaction or arrangement, computed on the basis applicable under Greek competition legislation.
- Whether the matter also meets EU-level thresholds – if so, the one-stop-shop mechanism may apply and the Greek filing may not be required.
- Whether any existing agreements benefit from a block exemption under EU law as transposed into Greek law, and whether any conditions of that exemption are satisfied in practice.
- Status of document preservation: is a litigation hold in place covering all potentially relevant communications?
- Whether any leniency eligibility exists and, if so, the priority position available relative to potential co-applicants.
Decision tree for strategic path selection: where turnover thresholds are clearly not met and no dominance is present, a compliance audit of existing agreements is the proportionate starting point. Where thresholds are borderline or market position is uncertain, formal legal advice on the notification obligation should be sought before signing. Where the business is already under investigation, immediate engagement of specialist counsel is required – parallel leniency evaluation, document preservation, and procedural response must begin simultaneously.
Frequently asked questions
- How long does a Greek merger notification typically take from filing to clearance?
- A complete Phase I notification is reviewed within approximately 30 working days. However, the clock starts only once the Commission formally accepts the filing as complete. In practice, pre-acceptance information requests frequently add four to eight weeks before the formal period begins. Transactions with hard contractual deadlines should plan for a total process of two to four months as a realistic baseline.
- Is it possible to avoid a fine entirely if we cooperate with the Hellenic Competition Commission during an investigation?
- Full immunity from fines is available under the leniency programme. However, only to the first applicant who provides qualifying information before a formal investigation decision is taken. or. In the inspection phase, before a competing applicant overtakes the priority position. Cooperation after the statement of objections is issued may still reduce the fine, but immunity is no longer available at that stage. Timing and content of the leniency application are therefore decisive. Engaging a lawyer in Greece with experience in leniency procedures before making first contact with the Commission is strongly advisable.
- Our distribution network in Greece was designed to comply with EU competition law. Does that mean it is automatically lawful under Greek law?
- Not automatically. Greek competition legislation incorporates EU block exemption rules, so compliance with an EU block exemption generally provides protection in Greece as well. However, the practical application of those rules by the Hellenic Competition Commission – and by Greek courts in private enforcement cases – may differ in emphasis and interpretation from the European Commission's approach. Arrangements that sit close to the boundary of block exemption protection, or that contain clauses requiring individual assessment, should be reviewed against the Greek enforcement record before being rolled out in the market.
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 businesses in managing merger notification obligations, cartel investigations, dominance proceedings, and private enforcement matters in Greece and across EU Member States. We combine Portuguese civil law expertise with English common law tradition – an approach that is particularly effective when clients face competition proceedings that span multiple legal systems simultaneously. As a law firm in Greece advising international clients, we bring direct experience of Hellenic Competition Commission procedures alongside the cross-border perspective that complex EU competition matters demand. Our attorneys have advised on competition matters across civil law and common law systems, including proceedings before national competition authorities and follow-on litigation before civil courts. The firm's competition law practice covers 15 practice areas and is active across all major European jurisdictions. To discuss your competition law situation in Greece, 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.