I
will focus on reported case law regarding service of Greek proceedings to
defendants / litigants living or having their seat in the USA.
I.
Greek courts have refused to render a
default judgment under the following circumstances:
a)
When the claimant produces to the
court solely the certificate of service to the competent (Greek) Public
Prosecutor’s office
[Supreme Court 250/1993, 657/1995, 835/2007, CoA Larissa 740/2008, CoA Patras
453/1993].
b)
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].
c)
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].
d)
When domestic time limits for the
appearance of the defendant before court have been violated.
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].
e)
When the claimant surreptitiously opts
for fictional service or service by publication,
without scrutinizing the possibilities for using conventional methods of
service [Supreme Court 503/2011 &, CoA Piraeus 730/2008]. However, if the
claimant exhausts the latter with no result, he’s allowed to proceed to the
former [1st Instance Multi-Member Court Athens 449/2004]. Hence, a
successive option is legitimate [1st Instance Court Thessaloniki
38292/2009 & 20721/2010].
II.
On the other hand, Greek courts
rendered a default judgment under the following circumstances:
a)
When six months have passed since the
day of transmission, according to Article 15 Para. 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].
b)
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.
c)
When the claimant opts for service to
a legally appointed proxy in Greece, thus avoiding service of process to the US
[Supreme Court 909/2004, CoA Dodecanese 200/1998, CoA Larissa 474/2006].
Finally, serving documents instituting proceedings in first
and second instance, or even to the Supreme Court, are within the field of
application of the Service Convention, unlike other documents beyond the claim
(summons 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 ].
Labels: Hague Service Convention