Breaking the Silence: How Greek Law 5326/2026 Implements the Anti-SLAPP Directive
This post was written by Chrisoula M. Michailidou, Dr. jur. (Heidelberg), Working Group member for Greece in the EAPIL Working Group on Anti-SLAPP Directive Transpositions and Member of the Greek Drafting Committee.
As already noted on this blog, the process of transposing Directive (EU) 2024/1069 – the Anti-SLAPP Directive – in Greece was under way and it has culminated in the adoption of Part A of Greek Law 5326/2026. The resulting framework is more than a transposition of the Anti-SLAPP Directive (hereinafter, ‘the Directive’): it is a procedural intervention harmonizing access to the courts with freedom of expression, and a response to civil society alarm at the growing number of SLAPPs against reporters in Greece. The drafting committee of the Ministry of Justice was presided over by Aikaterini Chondrorizou, Vice President of the Areios Pagos, with Dimitrios Tsikrikas (University of Athens) as rapporteur of the core provisions.
This post provides a comprehensive, yet concise, overview of the main features of the new framework.
1. Dual-layered legislative purpose
Article 1 pursues two objectives. The first is full incorporation of the Directive, which sets minimum standards protecting public participation from manifestly unfounded or abusive proceedings. Although the Directive covers only cross-border civil and commercial matters, the Greek legislator extended the safeguards to purely internal cases, confining that extension to civil matters.
1.1. Subject matter
Article 2 sets out four elements: guarantees against manifestly unfounded or abusive proceedings; the term “strategic lawsuits against public participation”; confinement to private law disputes; and protection of persons targeted for public participation.
1.2. Scope
Article 3(1) covers private law disputes before the civil courts, including actions, provisional protection proceedings, and counteractions, whether cross-border or purely domestic.
1.3. Transitional rules
Part A will enter into force on 16 September 2026, at the start of the new judicial year. Article 3(2) applies to actions listed for hearing on or after 1 March 2027 which were pending at the time of entry into force. Early dismissal applications are subject to a preclusive period of sixty days. Articles 4, 6, 7(2), 8, 9(1)–(2) and 12 also apply to appeals lodged after that date, as well as to pending, unheard appeals.
1.4. Exclusions ratione materiae
Article 3(3) excludes tax, customs and administrative cases; state liability for acts iure imperii; criminal matters; and arbitration.
2. Legal definitions
Article 4 sets out the conditions for early dismissal, security for costs and sanctions.
2.1. Matters of public interest
Public interest is broadly defined as any issue affecting society to a degree that justifies social interest. The non-exhaustive catalogue covers fundamental rights, public health, safety and the environment; the activities of public figures; matters before legislative, executive or judicial bodies; and allegations of corruption, fraud or other offences in these areas. It also covers the values set out in Article 2 TEU.
2.2. Abusive proceedings against public participation
SLAPPs are lawsuits brought not to exercise a right, but to prevent, restrict or punish public participation by exploiting a power imbalance. The codified indicators are:
– the disproportionate nature of the claim, including an excessive value of the subject matter;
– multiple proceedings by the plaintiff or connected parties;
– intimidation, harassment or threats before or during the proceedings;
– and bad faith manoeuvres such as prolonging proceedings, abusive forum shopping or discontinuance at an advanced stage.
2.3. Public participation
This covers any statement or activity that exercises freedom of expression, information, art, science, assembly or association on a matter of public interest. Crucially, it extends to preparatory or auxiliary acts, thereby protecting the entire chain of public discourse, including editors, printers, platform providers and NGO staff.
3. Early dismissal of manifestly unfounded or inadmissible claims
Article 5 forms the core of the statute, providing a fast-track screening mechanism that ends SLAPPs before the parties incur the cost of a full trial.
3.1 Initiation
Within thirty days of service of the main action, the defendant files the application with the registry and serves it on the claimant, stating the grounds and attaching the necessary documents.
3.2. Adversarial stage
The claimant has thirty days from service to contest the admissibility and merits of the case by submitting supporting documents.
3.3. Scheduling
Within ten days, the President of the Court of First Instance will designate the judge or panel, and the hearing will be set within one month. The parties will be summoned twenty days in advance. Adjournments are prohibited.
3.4. Evidence and decision
The court decides solely based on the documents provided; witness testimony, examination of the parties and expert opinions are not considered. If the application is granted, the action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible or unfounded by a final judgment. Otherwise, the main action proceeds on its original date.
3.5. Subsequent proceedings
Pleadings must be filed thirty days before the hearing and supplementary submissions fifteen days before, bypassing Article 237 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Witness statements will be assessed until midday on the fifth working day after the hearing. For pecuniary disputes under special procedures, Article 591 applies and parties must submit their main pleadings no later than the day of the hearing.
4. Determination of an action as abusive
Article 6 addresses abuse within the ordinary trial, where the threshold for the doctrine of abuse of right (Articles 281 of the Civil Code and 116(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure) is high. The defence is linked to the objective indicators of Article 4(b), allowing the defendant and any supporting intervenor to request that the action be characterised as a SLAPP within the pleadings. This opens the way to the sanctions of Article 9.
5. Burden of proof
Under Article 7, when seeking early dismissal, the burden of proving admissibility and merits shifts entirely to the claimant, who must demonstrate from the outset that the claim is legally and factually sound. Conversely, a defendant seeking a declaration of abuse under Article 6 must prove the circumstances that constitute it.
6. Security for court costs
Article 8 protects defendants from bearing the cost of litigation brought by plaintiffs with greater financial resources. This request is made in the defendant’s pleadings and the court may order security if there is an obvious risk that the plaintiff will be unable to comply with a costs order.
7. Sanctions against abusive proceedings
Article 9 is the main deterrent since ordinary cost shifting cannot address reputational harm. Firstly, under Article 189 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the plaintiff bears all the defendant’s expenses. For lawyers’ fees, the court awards a reasonable sum. Liability survives withdrawal of the claim. Secondly, the decision may be published in two nationwide daily newspapers and on their certified websites at the expense of the unsuccessful claimant. Thirdly, a fine may be imposed: one per cent of the amount claimed or €5,000 in non-pecuniary disputes. This fine is collected as public revenue.
8. Appeals
Where early dismissal is granted, the claimant may appeal. Appeal is the exclusive remedy. The deadline for appealing is thirty days from notification, or sixty days if the appellant resides abroad. Appeals are heard as a priority.
9. Interim and Precautionary Measures
Article 11 provides for the protection of provisional measures. If an application for interim measures is clearly inadmissible, unfounded or abusive, the judge cannot hear it ex parte and must proceed only if the respondent has been properly summoned. The case will then be scheduled for the earliest available date. Articles 8 and 9 apply by analogy to prevent escape through summary proceedings.
10. Intervention in support of the defendant
Under Article 12, associations, trade unions or other entities whose statutory mission is to defend public participation may intervene on behalf of the defendant with their explicit consent at the hearing. An intervention begun at the early dismissal stage retains its effect at trial.
11. Jurisdiction over property claims arising from SLAPPs
Article 13 inserts Article 40A into the Code of Civil Procedure. Departing from actor sequitur forum rei, it establishes a protective forum actoris, whereby any individual residing or established in Greece who is the target of an abusive lawsuit, whether in Greece or abroad, can claim damages and costs from the courts in their place of residence or establishment.
12. Refusal of recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments
Article 14 amends Articles 323 and 905 of the Code of Civil Procedure. A foreign decision issued in proceedings intended to discourage public participation is not recognised – this is a sixth, autonomous ground for refusal – and the same requirement applies to any declaration of enforceability.
13. Data collection and public information
Under Article 17, the Ministry of Justice collects data, submitting it to the Commission annually. This data covers the number of proceedings, the defendant’s category, claims dismissed early, damages and costs awarded, instance duration and the plaintiff’s profile, as well as any cross-border elements. This data must be publicly accessible in a machine-readable format.
14. Treaties and supplementary application of the Code of Civil Procedure
Article 19 leaves treaties concluded with third countries by the EU or Greece before 6 May 2024 unaffected, while designating the Greek Code of Civil Procedure as the residual framework for any lacunae.
15. Final remarks
In response to the Anti-SLAPP Directive, the Greek legislator introduced innovative procedural provisions to facilitate its implementation including domestic disputes, taking into account Recommendation (EU) 2022/758 of the Commission, as well as Recommendation CM/Rec(2024)2 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe.
Many thanks, Chrisoula, for this very useful overview of the Greek transposition, and in particular for highlighting the implementation of Article 17 of the Anti-SLAPP Directive.
The Greek provision seems particularly interesting from a private international law perspective. Article 17 is framed around abusive proceedings brought by a claimant domiciled outside the Union before a court or tribunal of a third country against a person domiciled in a Member State. Article 40A, however, appears to go considerably further, applying to abusive proceedings brought before a Greek or foreign court, irrespective of whether the proceedings are brought in a third country, in another Member State or in Greece, and irrespective of whether the claimant of that SLAPP proceeding is domiciled outside the Union or in the Union.
In other words, a provision conceived by Article 17 as a special jurisdictional basis for a “SLAPP-back” in response to third-country proceedings seems to have been transformed, in the Greek transposition, into a much broader jurisdictional basis for all SLAPP-back actions. This raises some particularly interesting questions concerning its interaction with the jurisdictional rules of Brussels I bis where the latter apply. For instance, where the defendant of the SLAPP-back action is domiciled in another Member State (e.g. Italy), could such a national Greek provision operate as a basis for jurisdiction before the Greek courts, notwithstanding the jurisdictional framework of Brussels I bis system? Specifically, would the application of the Brussels I bis Regulation preclude such an additional national ground of jurisdiction in some cases? This seems to raise a fascinating question about the relationship between the Directive’s special jurisdictional mechanism and the EU jurisdictional regime.
There is also an interesting dimension of venue. Article 17 of the Directive, and so Article 40A, appear to establish a specific venue for SLAPP-back actions, in addition to providing a basis for international jurisdiction. On this reading, the implementing provision should also set aside the ordinary national rules on territorial competence, including where the underlying situation is purely domestic (since the Greek transposition is extended to purely domestic cases). Thus, its effects would potentially extend beyond the allocation of international jurisdiction to determining the competent court even in a purely domestic Greek case.
It will be very interesting to see whether similar approaches emerge in other Member States and, more generally, how national courts will address the interaction between these broader SLAPP-back provisions and the existing EU and national rules on jurisdiction.