Cartels

Cartels are prohibited by virtue of Article 1 of the Competition Act (Law 3959/2011, as amended by Law 4886/2022), which is the equivalent of Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). Accordingly, this article prohibits all agreements or concerted practices between undertakings or associations of undertakings which have as their object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition. Moreover, Article 1A of the Competition Act aims to capture offences such as tacit collusion and price signalling by explicitly prohibiting any invitation to collude or announcement of future pricing intentions for products and services between competitors.

Cartels are investigated and sanctioned by the Hellenic Competition Commission (HCC) through an administrative law procedure whereby administrative fines are imposed on undertakings and individuals in accordance with the Competition Act.

In addition to the above administrative law prohibition, cartels have criminal and civil law aspects:

• The civil courts may grant damages to victims of cartels following civil law actions (damages claims) against cartel participants. Such actions are based on Greek tort law provisions, whereas the right to compensation has been confirmed by EU and Greek case law.
• The Competition Act also provides for the imposition of criminal sanctions, including jail sentences, on individuals involved in cartel infringements.

There are no special regimes for cartels in specific sectors under Greek law. However, apart from the HCC, the application of competition law rules may fall under the competence of:

• the Hellenic Telecommunications and Post Commission (EETT) for cases that involve telecommunications and postal services;
• the Regulatory Authority for Railways (RAS) for cases involving railway services, including commercial rail transport; or
• the Regulatory Authority for Energy, Waste and Water (RAEWW) for cases that involve electric energy, natural gas, water services and the management of municipal waste (albeit that this body has more limited powers).

HCC: The HCC is the competition watchdog that investigates violations and enforces both the Competition Act and Article 101 TFEU, pursuant to EU Regulation 1/2003 and as part of the European Competition Network.

EETT: The EETT has the relevant investigatory and enforcement powers to apply the competition law rules in cartel cases that involve the telecommunications and postal services sectors. The EETT may act on its own volition but may also request the assistance of the HCC if needed.

The application of EU rules concerning digital markets (ie, EU Regulation 2022/1925) falls under the competence of the HCC, unless more specific rules apply that establish the EETT’s competence.

RAS: RAS has the relevant investigatory and enforcement powers in cartel cases involving railway services, including the ability to impose sanctions under the Competition Act. In any case, it may also request the assistance of the HCC if needed.

RAEWW: In terms of investigatory and enforcement powers, RAEWW is obliged to cooperate with the HCC by recommending the initiation of investigations to the HCC. The extent of RAEWW’s actions during an investigation is not as broad as that of the HCC, but it encompasses several of the actions that the Competition Act provides for during an investigation.

Civil courts: While this is still uncommon in the Greek judicial system, cartel participants may be directly sued before the civil courts, which are equally competent to assess an agreement under the Competition Act and/or Article 101 TFEU.

The HCC is quite active in the investigation and enforcement of competition law rules against cartels in Greece. Based on its 2023 Annual Report, the HCC concluded a series of investigations falling under Article 1 of the Competition Act in various sectors, such as:

• banking [direct access fees for automated teller machines (ATMs) and other payment services];
• telecommunications equipment;
• medical equipment (rapid tests; breast pumps);
• consumer goods (makeup and personal care products);
• children’s toys; and
• raw materials (bauxite).

Additionally, five out of these seven cases were resolved through the settlement procedure.

Regarding ongoing investigations, the HCC publishes aggregate statistics, so it is not possible to distinguish cartel investigations from investigations for other infringements of competition law.

Among the most recently published HCC decisions, Decision 838/2023 is worth noting. In this decision, the HCC adopted the proposals submitted by the undertakings concerned (five banks and the Hellenic Banking Association) in the context of the settlement procedure. The parties were found to have engaged in horizontal collusion in breach of Article 1 of the Competition Act and Article 101 TFEU, leading to:

• the imposition of reduced fines totalling €41,756,180.10; and
• as a behavioural remedy, the imposition of an obligation to reduce the fee applied to off-us ATM cash withdrawal transactions (i.e. cash withdrawals made at ATMs that are not operated by the user's own bank).

Based on the Competition Act and Law 4529/2018 (which transposed EU Directive 2014/104), a ‘cartel’ is an agreement or concerted practice between undertakings or associations of undertakings that has as its object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition in the Greek territory. In particular, it involves:

• directly or indirectly fixing purchase or sale prices or any other trading conditions (including in relation to IP rights);
• limiting or controlling production, supply, technical development or investment (including import or export);
• sharing markets or customers or sources of supply (including bid rigging);
• applying dissimilar conditions to equivalent transactions with other trading parties, thereby placing them at a competitive disadvantage;
• making the conclusion of contracts subject to acceptance by the other parties of supplementary obligations which, by their nature or according to commercial usage, have no connection with the subject of such contracts; and
• any other anti-competitive actions against competitors.

The recently introduced Article 1A of the Competition Act, aims, among other things, to ensure the optimal implementation of Article 1. This provision deals with two unilateral practices, namely:

• invitations to collude; and
• price signalling.

In particular, Article 1A explicitly includes:

• cases where an undertaking proposes, coerces, motivates or in any way invites another undertaking to participate in an agreement, in decisions of associations of undertakings or in concerted practices that have the aforementioned object or effect; and
• cases where an undertaking discloses price, discount, supply or credit information about products or services it supplies or is supplied, where such disclosure:
• • restricts effective competition in the Greek territory; and
  • does not constitute a normal business practice.

The cartel offences defined in the Competition Act are essentially as described under question 2.1. However, this list is indicative only; it is possible that the Hellenic Competition Commission (HCC) or the Greek courts may find that certain practices other than the aforementioned will also fall under the scope of the definition.

The Competition Act stipulates that the sanctions imposed may be of an administrative nature or, following the report of a finding of infringement to the competent public prosecutor, a criminal nature. However, civil liability is also possible.

The fines imposed by the HCC are administrative in nature and can be addressed to undertakings up to 10% of the total worldwide turnover of an undertaking (or its group, if applicable) in the fiscal year prior to publication of the HCC’s decision.

Regarding criminal sanctions, Article 44 of the Competition Act provides for sanctions that are of a criminal nature (a fine ranging from €15,000 to €150,000) and are aggravated in case of horizontal cartels (imprisonment for between two and five years, as well as a pecuniary fine ranging from €100,000 to €1 million).

Civil liability is not mentioned in the Competition Act, but undertakings may be found liable through claims for damages that any third parties may bring before the Greek civil courts – usually on the basis of a finding of infringement of cartel rules by the HCC (see Law 4529/2018).

The above concerns infringements of substantive provisions of the legislation; but further sanctions may be imposed for procedural misconduct in case of:

• obstruction during an investigation;
• withholding of information;
• provision of false information; or
• refusal to appear before the HCC.

Prosecution for undertakings is construed in the administrative law sense.

Further, individuals may be prosecuted in both the administrative and criminal law sense. Specifically, the natural persons who are responsible for ensuring the compliance of an undertaking with the applicable rules are:

• the managers/representatives of a company;
• in sociétés anonymes, the members of the board of directors and the persons responsible for the implementation of the relevant decisions;
• in publicly listed sociétés anonymes, the executive members of the board of directors; and
• in associations of undertakings, the main governing body.

Such individuals may receive an administrative fine ranging from €200,000 to €2 million if they have engaged in:

• preparatory actions;
• the organisation of the unlawful conduct; or
• the unlawful conduct itself.

These persons are considered to be jointly and severally liable with the undertaking for the fines imposed on the latter and cannot transfer such liability to another person. Moreover, these fines are in addition to the criminal law sanctions mentioned under question 2.3.

The Competition Act follows the same extraterritoriality doctrine as EU competition law. According to EU case law (indicatively T‑326/17, Air Canada, 30 March 2022), the European Union recognises the qualified effects doctrine, thus adopting a broader concept of extraterritoriality. Accordingly, Articles 1 and 1A of the Competition Act apply to illegal conduct that takes place outside Greece, to the extent that this conduct produces effects (even if indirect ones) on competition within Greece.

Moreover, considering the notion of a single economic unit, as well as the joint and several liability of companies belonging to the same undertaking, including parent and subsidiary companies (Article 25B of the Competition Act), it may happen that foreign companies are prosecuted under the Competition Act.

Finally, the HCC, as part of the European Competition Network, follows the rules included in the European Commission Notice on Cooperation within the Network of Competition Authorities.

As discussed in question 2.5, the cartel legislation has extraterritorial reach.

Article 42 of the Competition Act provides for the same limitation period as EU Regulation 1/2003 – that is, 5years from the end of the infringement. The limitation period begins to run from the date on which the infringing act is committed. However, in case of continuous infringement, the limitation period begins to run from the date on which the infringing act ceases. Any action taken by the HCC, the European Commission or the competition authority of an EU member state for the purpose of the investigation or proceedings in respect of the infringement will interrupt the limitation period for the imposition of fines or periodic penalty payments. However, the limitation period will expire at the latest once 10 years have elapsed without the HCC having imposed a fine.

Damages claims before the Greek civil courts also have a limitation period of five years from the date on which the plaintiff became aware of the damage and the identity of the liable person. In any case, the limitation period cannot exceed 20 years from the illegal conduct. This limitation period, in case of a party that has been granted immunity due to participation in the leniency procedure, begins to run after:

• the unsuccessful attempt to enforce a decision; or
• the definite rejection of the claim against the other cartel participants.

This is not applicable in the case of claims brought by direct or indirect purchasers or suppliers of the offender.

The Hellenic Competition Commission (HCC) can commence an investigation based on complaints from businesses, consumers or other stakeholders that suspect anti-competitive practices. Moreover, the HCC has the authority to initiate investigations ex officio based on its own market intelligence. This can occur through market monitoring or if the HCC becomes aware of potentially anti-competitive behaviour through other means. In addition, the HCC has implemented a digital platform for the anonymous provision of information (a whistleblowing tool) to enhance its investigative powers and facilitate its intervention, whereby citizens or businesses that identify illegal practices can securely and anonymously provide information. In 2023 alone, 112 reports were submitted. Furthermore, companies involved in a cartel may apply for leniency in exchange for providing information about the cartel. Such leniency applications can trigger an investigation by the HCC.

The HCC can conduct sector inquiries to investigate the state of competition in specific sectors of the economy. These inquiries can lead to the commencement of further investigations.

According to EU Regulation 1/2003, the HCC may receive referrals from other national or EU authorities, such as the European Commission, which can lead to the commencement of ad hoc/ targeted investigations.

The Hellenic Competition Commission (HCC) has the authority to:

• conduct unannounced searches of both business and residential premises (dawn raids). However, searches of residential premises require authorisation by a court or another independent body. Searches are carried out by officers of the Directorate General of the HCC, who may be assisted by the public prosecutor and other competent authorities, such as the police – especially if the investigation is obstructed;
• ‘image’ computer hard drives using forensic IT tools, retain original documents during its investigations and require an explanation of documents or information supplied;
• secure premises overnight – for example, by sealing them;
• request oral statements, which differ from compulsory interviews/unsworn statements. Oral statements can be requested on the spot (ie, during a dawn raid), whereas compulsory interviews/unsworn statements can take place any time during the investigation, upon summoning of the investigated individuals by the HCC;
• address requests for information to undertakings as part of its investigatory powers; and
• carry out compulsory interviews with individuals.

The HCC does not have general surveillance powers, such as bugging.

The HCC cooperates with its counterparts in other jurisdictions primarily through its role as part of the European Competition Network (ECN). This cooperation is guided by the rules included in the European Commission Notice on Cooperation within the Network of Competition Authorities. The HCC enforces both national and EU competition laws, which aligns its operations with EU standards and practices. The ECN allows for the sharing of information and coordination of investigations across member states. Regulation EU 1/2003 provides a framework for cooperation between the HCC and other national competition authorities in the European Union, allowing them to work together on cross-border competition issues. The Competition Act applies to illegal conduct outside Greece if it affects competition within Greece, aligning with the European Union’s extraterritoriality doctrine. This necessitates cooperation with other jurisdictions to address such conduct.

The interconnected nature of the single market means that many competition issues inherently involve multiple jurisdictions, making cooperation necessary for effective enforcement. The ECN’s structure and processes are designed to facilitate this cooperation seamlessly, making it a standard practice in the enforcement of competition laws within the European Union.

Direct participation of third parties in the investigation process is limited. However, during an investigation, the HCC may seek information from third parties that have relevant knowledge or data. These can include:

• market participants;
• industry experts; or
• other stakeholders who can provide insights into the market dynamics or the conduct under investigation.

The HCC can refer to third parties by asking them to respond to its questions through a request for information, which is part of its investigatory powers.

During an investigation, the HCC has the right to:

• request information from undertakings, associations or other entities when necessary for exercising its powers;
• inspect books, records and other documents, including electronic data, and seize or copy them;
• inspect premises and means of transport;
• seal professional premises; and
• take oral statements.

The HCC may impose restrictions related to personal data during investigations if such actions could jeopardise or complicate investigations or enforcement activities. The data subjects must be informed of these restrictions unless this would be detrimental to the investigation.

In exercising its investigatory powers, the HCC must adhere to principles of due process, ensuring that investigations are conducted fairly. The HCC must ensure that its investigative actions are proportionate to the objectives of the investigation. This means avoiding excessive or unnecessary measures that could unduly burden the entities under investigation. When conducting inspections of residential premises, the HCC must obtain judicial authorisation to respect privacy rights and ensure that legal safeguards are in place. The HCC must respect the right of entities under investigation to have legal representation during the process. The parties involved in the investigation should be notified and provided with explanations regarding the scope and purpose of the investigation.

Companies must:

• provide accurate and complete information as requested by the HCC, including granting access to books, records and other documents, regardless of how and where they are stored;
• allow inspections of their premises and provide oral clarifications upon request; and
• comply with requests from the HCC, as failure to do so can result in fines or other penalties.

Companies must not obstruct investigations; failure to comply can result in fines proportional to the company’s turnover.

Companies have the right to be informed of any restrictions that apply to their data rights and the reasons for such restrictions, unless this would be detrimental to the investigation.

Individuals have the right:

• to be informed about restrictions on their data rights and the reasons for these restrictions, and to lodge a complaint with the Hellenic Data Protection Authority accordingly;
• to be represented by legal counsel during interviews or when providing statements; and
• to confidentiality regarding the information that they provide, which is protected under the same provisions as for companies.

Individuals, including representatives of companies, must:

• comply with any summons to provide an unsworn witness statement;
• cooperate with the investigation by providing explanations of documents or information supplied;
• not destroy, falsify or withhold information; and
• not obstruct the investigation. Obstruction can lead to administrative fines and, in some cases, criminal sanctions.

The principle of attorney-client privilege is recognised in EU law, but its application can vary, especially in the context of competition law investigations. The Court of Justice of the European Union has established that communications between a lawyer and their client are protected under certain conditions – primarily when the lawyer is independent and not bound by an employment relationship with the client. A significant aspect of EU jurisprudence is the treatment of in-house counsel. According to the decision in Akzo Nobel Chemicals Ltd v European Commission (Joined Cases T-125/03 and T-253/03), communications with in-house lawyers are not protected by legal privilege in the same way as those with external lawyers. This is because in-house lawyers, despite being qualified, are not considered independent due to their employment relationship with the company.

Greece follows the EU approach to attorney-client privilege. There is no specific provision in Greek law that addresses the privilege of in-house legal advice and the issue has not been addressed by the Greek courts. During cartel investigations, the lack of privilege for in-house counsel means that companies must be cautious about the nature of communications involving their legal departments.

External legal advice is protected and governed by attorney-client privilege.

The HCC announces through press releases on its website the dawn raids it has conducted in the context of an investigation. These press releases refer to the market concerned and the infringement under examination but make no reference to the investigated undertakings.

The information collected during investigations can be used only for the purpose of:

• requests for information;
• inspections; or
• hearings.

Employees of the HCC Directorate General and other involved parties must treat any confidential information obtained during the performance of their duties with confidentiality.

Additional strict confidentiality obligations apply both during the settlement procedure and under the leniency programme. In particular, when it comes to the settlement procedure and the leniency programme, no information may be made public until the final decision of the HCC has been issued. This obligation applies both to the undertakings concerned and to the HCC.

Further, decisions of the HCC, which are of an individual nature, must be:

• specifically reasoned;
• published in the Government Gazette; and
• posted online pursuant to Law 3861/2010.

This indicates that the outcomes of investigations are made public.

All cartel cases, regardless of the grounds on which they are initiated, are subject to an initial assessment stage. During this stage, the Hellenic Competition Commission (HCC) will:

• evaluate whether the case warrants further investigation; and
• if so, preliminarily identify the key issues – in particular, concerning:
• • the parties involved;
  • the relevant markets; and
  • the behaviour under investigation.

At this stage, the HCC can exercise its investigatory powers by taking various measures, such as:

• conducting dawn raids;
• taking unsworn witness statements;
• calling to deliberations any representative of an undertaking concerned or any other natural person; and
• sending requests for information.

The HCC will initiate the investigation process following:

• a complaint (which has been assessed by the HCC); or
• in the case of ex officio investigations, a relevant act of the president of the HCC or a decision of the HCC, provided that the first investigative measure has been carried out.

In practice, the initial assessment system means that certain cases are dismissed at a very early stage as they are deemed not to warrant further investigation. In this regard, the HCC focuses its enforcement resources on cases in which a violation is likely to be identified – particularly those with a significant impact on the functioning of the market, posing a risk of harm to consumers. Additionally, the HCC prioritises cases that are likely to contribute to:

• shaping competition policy at both the national and EU levels; or
• ensuring the consistent application of Articles 1 and 1A of the Competition Act (and Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union).

According to the HCC’s 2023 Annual Report, the HCC conducted the highest number of on-site inspections of all European competition authorities in 2023 (10 dawn raids in 36 companies in total), including several obstruction cases. In 2023 and 2024, the HCC carried out unannounced inspections across a wide range of sectors, including:

• IT services;
• travel;
• coffee;
• infant nutrition;
• pet food;
• ferry routes;
• urban wastewater management;
• medical supplies;
• pharmaceuticals;
• poultry; and
• electricity distribution equipment.

The HCC must have:

• reasonable suspicions of a cartel violation, particularly one with a significant impact on the functioning of the market that poses a risk of harming consumers; and
• strong indications that the relevant evidence which may be essential for establishing such violation is likely to be found during on-site inspections.

HCC officers have the power to search both company premises and/or residential premises of the company executives and/or employees. The officers may be assisted by the public prosecutor and any other competent authority (police), especially when the investigation is denied or obstructed by the company. With respect to the investigation of residential premises, such investigation must be conducted with judicial authority in conformity with Article 9 of the Constitution (protection of the residential asylum).

Although no virtual dawn raids or investigations of private residences have been conducted, the HCC has intensified its dawn raid efforts by leveraging digital tools to monitor prices and, for certain product categories, quantities. This is facilitated through the HCC’s Data Analytics and Economic Intelligence platform.

The HCC’s investigative powers essentially mirror those under EU Regulation 1/2003. In particular, designated officials of the HCC or employees of other public authorities assisting the HCC are authorised to conduct extensive inspections and investigations. They may:

• examine business records, documents and electronic correspondence;
• seize professional records and electronic storage devices; and
• inspect mobile and portable devices.

Additionally, they have the authority to:

• carry out unannounced searches in business premises, transportation means and, under certain conditions, private residences, if there is a reasonable suspicion that relevant documents are stored there;
• seal business premises, records and documents as necessary during the investigation; and
• take unsworn statements and call to deliberations company executives and/or employees regarding facts or documents that are relevant to the investigation.

In certain cases, the HCC may request that the confidentiality of communications be waived. The HCC may also address compulsory requests for information to the public or other authorities.

The only material limitations concern investigations in residential premises, in which case HCC officials must comply with Article 9 of the Constitution regarding the protection of the residential asylum.

During a dawn raid, HCC officials can:

• seize, receive or obtain, in any form, a copy or extract of books, documents and electronic storage and transmission of information relating to business information;
• where they deem this appropriate, continue the investigation and make copies or take extracts at the HCC’s premises or other designated sites;
• seal any business premises, books or documents for the duration of and to the extent necessary for the inspection; and
• take, at their discretion, unsworn witness statements and call any representatives or employees of the raided undertaking for deliberations on facts or documents relating to the subject matter and purpose of the inspection, and record their respective answers.

Best practices:

• Update internal policies and procedures:
• • Review and update policies.
  • Maintain up-to-date emergency contacts for legal, compliance, IT and external forensics teams.
  • Plan for dawn raid coverage, especially on days when remote work is common.
• Data mapping:
• • Maintain a clear overview of data storage locations, including remote access to mobiles and laptops.
  • Account for all data sources.
  • Identify and isolate legally privileged material efficiently.
• Training:
• • Regularly train the core response team.
  • Conduct mock dawn raids.
  • Ensure that employees understand document retention policies, know whom to contact and are aware that some may be visited at home.
  • Plan for backup personnel.

Key tips for handling a dawn raid:

• Cooperate fully with the authority: Ensure that employees do not obstruct or hinder the inspection and refrain from sharing inaccurate or misleading information. Management and employees should remain composed and cooperative.
• Verify officials’ documentation: Upon the arrival of HCC officials:
• • obtain copies of any warrant;
  • verify the ID of inspectors; and
  • register their details.
• Confirm the scope of the raid, ensuring that only documents within the authorised scope are handed over.
• Understand the HCC’s objective: Establish what the HCC is trying to achieve during the course of the day.
• Monitor the inspectors: Assign someone to closely observe each inspector and take detailed notes. Legal counsel should always be present, while ensuring that a detailed record of collected documents is kept.
• Confidentiality: Maintain strict confidentiality regarding the dawn raid.

The typical phases of the process before the HCC after a dawn raid are as follows:

• Within one to two months of the dawn raid, the HCC will invite the raided company to participate in the unsealing process of collected digital material. During this process, the company and the HCC will classify materials as:
• • relevant or non-relevant; and
  • privileged or non-privileged.
• Non-relevant and privileged materials, as well as personal data/private correspondence, are permanently deleted. After unsealing, the company can submit confidentiality claims for relevant, non-privileged materials containing business secrets. For hardcopy documents, this exercise/characterisation may pre-date or coincide with the unsealing process.
• If the HCC considers that the case has merits and thus requires more information, it will probably engage in further investigatory measures (requests for information, unsworn oral statements by company key employees/executives).
• If the HCC decides to finally pursue a case, a statement of objections will be issued within a reasonable time, which is normally two to three years following the dawn raid, and the standard adversarial procedure before the HCC will follow. However, the raided company (preferably before, but also after) the issuance of the statement of objections may consider settling the case with the HCC and taking advantage of the benefits that the settlement procedure offers.

In assessing whether cartel activity has taken place, enforcement authorities can consider factors, such as:

• hard evidence of competitor communication and coordination, obtained through dawn raids, whistleblower reports or leniency applications. This may include formal agreements or informal evidence of collusion through:
• • emails;
  • meeting minutes (including those of trading associations);
  • messages;
  • internal documents; and
  • witness statements;
• market conditions, including:
• • market structure;
  • potential parallel pricing behaviour or market stability inconsistent with competitive conditions; and
  • economic evidence of artificially inflated prices or reduced output; and
• parallel investigations by other national competition authorities targeting the same companies under the HCC’s scrutiny.

There is a settlement procedure (Article 29A of the Competition Act and HCC Decision 790/2022) for cases in which undertakings acknowledge:

• their participation in the alleged cartels;
• the subsequent infringement of competition law; and
• their liability.

As a result, they can obtain a 15% reduction in the imposed administrative fine. The HCC enjoys full discretion in this case.

Settlement discussions may commence at the involved undertaking’s initiative:

• at any stage of the investigation before the statement of objections is issued; or
• if issued, no later than 35 days before the case is discussed before the HCC.

Subsequently, bilateral meetings take place with the case team. Once the bilateral meetings have matured, the involved undertakings may submit an official settlement proposal within 30 days.

If the settlement proposal reflects the meeting outcomes, a ‘settlement statement of objections’ is notified to the involved parties within two months of submission of the proposal. The parties are then invited to declare that they accept the settlement statement of objections within 10 days. Failure to submit a settlement statement results in full withdrawal of the proposals, which are not binding on the involved undertakings. Upon submission of a settlement statement, the HCC issues a final decision. The settlement statement of objections is not binding on the HCC, which retains broad discretion to:

• reassess the case, both factually and legally; and
• terminate the settlement procedure.

A recent amendment to the law provides that businesses entering the settlement procedure and fully paying their fine are exempt from administrative sanctions, except in specific cases.

The Competition Act provides for a leniency programme (Article 29B and Hellenic Competition Commission (HCC) Decision 791/2022) based on the European Commission’s leniency programme. Through leniency, an undertaking or an individual can benefit from either immunity or a reduction in fines.

The HCC will grant immunity from fines which normally would have been imposed if, among other things, an undertaking:

• admits its participation in the cartel;
• did not attempt to induce other companies to enter into or remain in the cartel; and
• is the first to submit information and evidence which, in the HCC’s view, will enable it to either:
• • launch a targeted investigation (Type 1A); or
  • find an infringement (Type 1B).

Undertakings that do not meet the conditions for immunity may still be eligible to benefit from a reduction of any fine that would otherwise have been imposed by the HCC (Type 2). In this case, an undertaking must, among other things:

• admit its participation in the cartel; and
• provide evidence which has added value with respect to the evidence already possessed by the HCC.

Moreover, in both cases, undertakings must:

• fully cooperate with the HCC as may be required;
• terminate their participation in the alleged cartel at most immediately after submission of the request for participation in the leniency programme; and
• not destroy, alter or hide any evidence and not divulge to a third party its intentions to enter the leniency programme or the content of its application.

The acceptance of a leniency application may lead to:

• the non-imposition (immunity) of an administrative fine for first movers – that is, for the first person to submit a request for immunity; or
• the imposition of a reduced fine, where the conditions for immunity are not met.

In any case, the reduction cannot exceed:

• 50% of the fine that would normally have been imposed for an undertaking; and
• 70% for an individual.

Additionally, any individuals acting in a capacity mentioned under question 2.4 may benefit from the non-imposition of criminal sanctions, on condition that:

• these persons have cooperated actively with the HCC and the public prosecutor; and
• the request for leniency was submitted before they were informed about any criminal prosecution against them.

Moreover, such individuals may be fully exempted from any kind of administrative sanctions. Individuals that initiated or participated in the cartel may also remain unpunished if, on their own volition and prior to any examination of their actions, they decide to inform the HCC or the public prosecutor.

Finally, an undertaking may be fully exempt from any other administrative sanctions, including being allowed to participate in public tenders.

An undertaking, association of undertakings or natural person must undertake the following actions:

• Submit a request to the HCC, providing the necessary information and evidence. The request should be addressed to the HCC’s president, who will inform the general director and the rapporteur, if applicable.
• Receive from the general director acknowledgement of receipt of the request.
• Receive a marker from the HCC – that is, a number indicating its rank in the overall line of potential leniency applicants – as well as a deadline for the complete submission of the necessary evidence.
• If the HCC is satisfied with the evidence provided, receive:
• • in case of immunity, written confirmation providing temporary immunity or a rejection of the request. In case of rejection, the applicant may request to be considered for a reduction of any fines; or
  • in case of reduction of a fine, if the HCC considers that the evidence provides added value, written confirmation providing for temporary induction into the leniency programme, at most at the time of notification of the HCC’s statement of objections to the applicant. Otherwise, the HCC may reject the request.

The full immunity or the final reduced fines are ultimately granted by the HCC through the issue of its final decision on the case, in which the relevant conditions for induction into the leniency programme are mentioned.

Throughout the leniency programme, the applicant must:

• fully and truthfully cooperate with the HCC, without delay and on a continuous basis. This includes:
• • providing all the necessary information and evidence;
  • remaining at the HCC’s disposal to reply to questions or requests related to the facts;
  • not destroying, altering or hiding any information or evidence that may help to establish the infringement;
  • not divulging to a third party its application or the content thereof until the notification of the statement of objections to the involved parties; and
  • ensuring the availability of current senior management and staff, as well as assisting in contacting former senior management and staff for the provision of statements; and
• terminate its participation in the alleged cartel at most immediately after submission of the request for participation in the leniency programme.

Moreover, prior to the leniency application, the applicant must not:

• destroy, alter or hide any information or evidence regarding the alleged infringement; or
• divulge to a third party its application or the content thereof.

An undertaking or individual can expect that the HCC will maintain confidentiality and not divulge to a third party any information related to the leniency application. Additionally, an undertaking or individual that is interested in applying for leniency may approach the HCC anonymously in order to discuss the case on a hypothetical basis and request clarifications regarding the possibility of applying for the leniency programme. Moreover, the applicant may submit any statements that accompany an application for leniency in one of the official EU languages upon agreement with the HCC.

The leniency programme is also applicable to individuals.

Law 4990/2022 (which transposed Directive 2019/1937) provides for the protection of whistleblowers, including in cases where they report potential breaches of Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

Leniency (in the form of temporary immunity or temporary induction into the leniency programme for the reduction of fines) can be denied by the HCC if:

• the general conditions set out in question 5.1 are not met; or
• the terms and minimum requirements for the provision of information are not complied with.

In that case, the HCC’s president will inform the applicant in writing. Any evidence provided by the applicant will not be used by the HCC for the establishment of the infringement against itself, unless the information was already in the possession of the HCC.

The HCC can also deny leniency in its final decision regarding the infringement if:

• the general conditions have not been met;
• the terms and minimum requirements for the provision of information in each respective case have not been met; or
• any term or condition that the HCC set is not complied with.

Immunity from a fine or a reduction in fine can also be revoked if:

• at any stage of the leniency procedure, and especially following the provision of temporary immunity or temporary induction into the leniency programme, the HCC finds that the applicant:
• • did not comply with all of the conditions; or
  • attempted to induce or induced another undertaking to enter into or remain in the cartel; or
• at any stage of the leniency procedure, the applicant finds that the applicant submitted false, inaccurate or deceptive statements.

The applicant may revoke its leniency application if the HCC president informs it in writing that its application has been rejected.

Companies: In Greece, companies themselves are not subject to criminal liability. Criminal proceedings typically target individuals rather than corporate entities. Therefore, companies do not face criminal penalties such as imprisonment or criminal fines. Instead, they are subject to administrative fines and sanctions imposed by the Hellenic Competition Commission (HCC).

Individuals: Any person who executes an agreement, takes a decision or applies a concerted practice in breach of Article 1 of the Competition Act or Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union will be punished by a fine of €15,000 to €150,000. If the act pertains to undertakings that are in actual or potential competition with each other, a term of imprisonment of at least two years and a fine of between €100,000 and €1 million will be imposed.

See question 8 regarding the penalties that may be imposed in the context of civil proceedings.

The HCC takes into account specific criteria for determining the penalties in cartel cases to ensure that they are effective, proportionate and dissuasive. Fines can reach up to 10% of the total global turnover of the undertaking in the year preceding the issuance of the HCC’s decision.

In order to calculate the fine to be imposed on the undertakings or associations of undertakings which have committed the infringement, the HCC uses the following methodology (see HCC, “Guidelines on the calculation of fines pursuant to Articles 25 and 25B of L. 3959/2011, as in force”):

• First, the HCC sets the basic amount of the fine for each undertaking or association of undertakings involved by reference to:
• • the gravity, duration and geographical extent of the infringement; and
  • the duration and type of participation in the infringement of each party involved therein.
• To assess the gravity of the infringement, the HCC will take into account, in particular:
• • the type of infringement;
  • the anti-competitive effects that occurred or threatened to occur on the market;
  • the specific weight of each undertaking in the infringement;
  • the economic benefit that the infringers gained or sought to gain;
  • the economic power of the infringing undertaking(s) in the relevant market; and
  • the scope of the geographical market.
• Second, if it deems this appropriate, the HCC will adjust (increase or decrease) the basic amount, depending on the existence of any aggravating or mitigating circumstances, respectively.

The HCC’s methodology in principle does not take account of penalties imposed in other jurisdictions when determining the penalties for cartel investigations.

The Competition Act allows for the imposition of financial penalties per day of non-compliance, capped at 3% of the average daily total global turnover.

The HCC may reduce fines by up to 15% if a settlement is reached. Also, the leniency programme, as described in question 5.2, allows for an exemption from or a reduction in fines for undertakings and individuals who contribute to the investigation. Full or partial immunity from fines may be granted if the applicant meets specific conditions.

There are no specific provisions for this.

The final decisions of the Hellenic Competition Commission (HCC) (οr of other enforcement authorities) are subject to judicial review by the Athens Administrative Court of Appeals. This review entails a full review of the facts and evidence. While the judicial review is pending, the parties can also request suspension of payment of the fine.

The judgments of the Athens Administrative Court of Appeals can be further appealed, upon points of law only, to the supreme administrative court of Greece, the Hellenic Council of State.

The judgments of both aforementioned courts are considered as having the force of res judicata. Other courts, such as civil and criminal courts, may also apply the provisions of the Competition Act or its EU equivalent, but their judgments will not bind the HCC or any of the higher courts mentioned above.

The amicus curiae provisions also apply – that is, assistance by the European Commission or the HCC to the competent courts, based on the Competition Act.

The right to appeal before the Athens Administrative Court of Appeals can be exercised by:

• the undertakings that the decision directly concerns;
• the party that complained of the infringement in the first place;
• the Greek government; or
• any third party with a legitimate interest.

The right to appeal before the Hellenic Council of State can be exercised by the parties involved in the previous instance (ie, before the Athens Administrative Court of Appeals).

Parties with a legitimate interest or undertakings that engaged in the practices with the undertaking involved in the main proceedings may file a third-party intervention in the course of the main proceedings.

Third parties that have suffered damage or loss as a result of cartel conduct may bring an action for damages before the civil courts. The statutory basis for such claims is Law 4529/2018 (which transposed EU Directive 2014/104). Before its adoption, the related actions for damages were governed under the general tort provisions of the Civil Code (Articles 914 and following), which continue to apply in supplement to Law 4529/2018.

Such actions can be brought irrespective of whether the HCC has already found a violation of Article 1 or 1A of the Competition Act. However, such findings will definitely enhance a plaintiff’s chances in a case.

In principle, damages actions that arise from competition law disputes target the undertakings that participated in the infringement.

Class actions are available in Greece. The Civil Procedure Code provides that an action for damages may be brought jointly by more than one party, on condition that:

• the plaintiff’s right to damages arises from the same factual and legal basis; or
• the object of the dispute consists of similar claims based on a similar factual and legal basis.

Additionally, Law 5019/2023 on consumer protection provides for procedural mechanisms of representative actions in case of breaches of consumer law. As consumer law infringements do not fall under the competence of the HCC, it could be argued that, insofar as final consumers sustain damage as a result of a competition law violation, this law could apply by analogy to their claims; however, this has not yet been tested before the Greek courts.

Greek law does not provide for any particular tool allowing class actions with regard to damages actions that arise from competition law disputes.

Any actions claiming damages that arise from competition law disputes must be filed before a specialist chamber of the Athens Court of First Instance and will then be served on the counterparty within 30 days. The action should necessarily include:

• the facts that establish the party’s right to damages and allow for the filing of the action against the counterparty;
• an accurate description of the issue under examination; and
• a specific request.

The parties have 90 days from the expiry of the aforementioned 30-day period to submit:

• their pleadings;
• any relevant documentation and proof;
• representation documents; and
• proof of service on the counterparty.

Any rebuttals must be submitted at least 15 days from the expiry of the 90-day period. Within 15 days of this 15-day period, the court will allocate a day for the hearing, on a date not exceeding 30 days from the expiry of the 15-day period.

In order to establish the damage and its extent, the court may order the counterparty or a third party (eg, a competition authority) to provide any relevant evidence. However, there are strict rules in place that govern the provision of such evidence, especially by a competition authority.

Law 4529/2018 enshrines the right to seek full compensation for the harm caused by competition law infringements. Based on the civil law provisions on tort law, a plaintiff can claim:

• actual damage incurred;
• loss of profit; and
• interest for the period from the occurrence of the harm up to the payment of compensation.

The Greek jurisprudence on the merits on cartel damages actions is rather limited. As yet, no judgments have been issued by the civil courts regarding the provision of compensation due to cartel infringements.

The court is responsible for the calculation of the harm incurred and will employ the standard of probability during its assessment, especially if it proves to be quite difficult for the plaintiff to prove the exact damage caused. The court will especially consider:

• the type and extent of infringement; and
• the due diligence that the plaintiff has shown in the collection of proof.

The court may also request the HCC to assist in such cases. In particular for cartels, there is a rebuttable presumption that damage has occurred from the infringing conduct.

Law 4529/2018 also recognises the passing-on defence. In the context of a passing-on defence, the defendant may argue that, for the actual harm incurred, any overcharge was passed on by the plaintiff to its own customers. The same standard of probability may be employed by the court for quantification of the overcharge.

The decision of a civil court arising from an action for damages can be appealed before the specialist chamber of the Athens Court of Appeals. The judicial review covers the full review of facts and evidence. The judgment of the Athens Court of Appeals can be further appealed, upon points of law only, before the Supreme Court.

The Hellenic Competition Commission (HCC) is increasingly stepping up its activities in the cartel enforcement landscape. As its 2023 statistics indicate, a significant proportion of its ongoing aggregate activities consists of enforcement-related actions (ie, 27% investigations are initiated by the HCC and 36% by complaints). Furthermore, the HCC has expressed its intention to increase its headcount, thus equipping itself with the necessary manpower to examine more cases and ramp up enforcement of the competition rules.

The HCC is also quite active in other areas, such as:

• mapping sectors in which potential problems may arise; and
• sending out questionnaires to undertakings in order to collect information that may eventually lead to the discovery of a cartel infringement.

In Greece, the HCC has focused on more ‘traditional’ sectors and it seems that this trend will continue. Nevertheless, the aforementioned decisions confirm that the HCC has diversified the sectors that it investigates. Additionally, the issuance of two decisions on sector-specific matters in the banking sector suggest that the HCC intends to look into more sophisticated issues.

In terms of legislation, no particular reforms are expected in the coming 12 months.

Top tips:

• Companies should foster a strong compliance culture with clear reporting lines and oversight by a local compliance committee. This will ensure that competition compliance is monitored effectively.
• Competition training materials should:
• • be comprehensive, practical and tailored to different employee roles; and
  • available in the local language to ensure accessibility and understanding by all employees.
• Specialised training should be provided to those in risk-prone positions.
• Training materials should include guidance on handling dawn raids, as these are commonly used by the Hellenic Competition Commission (HCC). This is crucial for preparing employees to respond appropriately during such investigations.
• Companies should conduct a comprehensive internal review of all documents and communications related to the investigation. These include both physical and electronic documents.
• It is crucial to cooperate with the HCC during the investigation. This includes attending meetings and providing requested documents.
• Engage external legal counsel to navigate the complexities of competition law and maintain attorney-client privilege. Companies should assess potential risks by evaluating the material that has been seized by the HCC.
• Defence rights should be correctly exercised.

Potential pitfalls:

• Companies should be cautious of acting as a hub for exchanging commercial information among competitors, as this could facilitate collusion. It is important to ensure that no competitively sensitive information is shared.
• Ensure that market research practices involve only publicly available information. Avoid collecting non-public information about competitors, as this could be problematic in a cartel investigation.
• Companies should be extremely cautious when exchanging information with competitors. Any information that eliminates or reduces strategic uncertainty in the market and that is likely to affect the current or future market conduct of undertakings concerned is problematic from a competition law perspective.
• Companies should be cautious of their participation in (public) tenders and apply a very strict compliance policy when it comes to cooperation schemes and information exchange in this regard. Bid rigging (collusive tendering) is among the anti-competitive practices that the HCC focuses on.