Greek Court Finds Belgian Prescription Rule Comports with Public Policy

In a jugdgment dated 13/05/2024 (judgment No. 768/2024), the Thessaloniki Court of Appeal ruled that the Belgian rule on the effect of introducing a lawsuit on prescription was not contrary to Greek public policy.

Facts

The parties entered into a private agreement for commercial cooperation and the provision of consultancy services. The agreement was concluded in Belgium and contained a choice-of-law clause designating Belgian law as the law governing their contractual relationship. The cooperation concerned the operation of the appellant’s Liaison Office. After the agreed remuneration had been paid only in part, the claimant, as respondent on appeal, brought proceedings seeking a declaration that the outstanding balance remained payable. An interlocutory, non-final judgment was issued, requiring the claimant to submit legal information from the Institute of International and Foreign Law concerning the relevant provisions of Belgian law. The claimant subsequently reinstated the action. The court applied Belgian law and ruled in favour of the claimant. The defendant appealed.

Jugdment

The Court of Appeal examined the relevant provisions of Belgian law concerning contracts for the provision of services and limitation. It found that Belgian law contains no specific limitation regime applicable to the claim in question, and that the general provisions therefore apply, providing for a ten-year limitation period. The Belgian legal system does not recognise the Greek-law concept of prescription pendente lite in the form invoked in the proceedings. The appellant argued that the application of Belgian law was contrary to Greek international public policy.

Under Greek law, the concept of prescription pendente lite (the status of a statute of limitations while a lawsuit is actively pending) is that the statute of limitations is not simply paused during a lawsuit, it is formally interrupted when the lawsuit (originating process) is filed and officially served on the defendant.

The Court rejected this argument. It found no manifest infringement of fundamental principles of Greek law and no violation of rules of overriding importance to the domestic legal order. The mere fact that Belgian law does not recognise an institution familiar to Greek law does not, by itself, entail a violation of Greek international public policy. The Court also took into account the parties’ freely exercised choice of foreign law and the fact that the dispute had closer links with the Belgian legal system.

The judgment is published in Armenopoulos (Thessaloniki Bar Review), Issue 7/2026.