Commercial Debt Collection in Greece – Complete FAQ Guide

Commercial debt collection refers to the full set of legal tools available to a creditor-business for recovering amounts owed by a counterparty that is unable or unwilling to meet its obligations.
The collection process encompasses all the legal procedures and enforcement mechanisms through which the claims are ultimately recovered.
Read more: Commercial Debt Collection — The Business Creditor’s Arsenal

The fastest method for obtaining an enforceable title is the payment order (diatagi plirомis). With the transfer of competence to lawyers under Law 5221/2025, the issuance times for payment orders are expected to accelerate. “The compulsory enforcement phase is the most difficult practical part of collecting a commercial claim” — an enforceable title may exist but no visible assets be found in the debtor’s name.
For this reason, “before initiating proceedings, a thorough review of the debtor’s asset position should be conducted through public databases (GEMI, Land Registry, DIAVGEIA, etc.),” from which the creditor can obtain satisfaction. An aggressive collection move frequently leads to a settlement before reaching the final enforcement stages.
Read more: Commercial Debt Collection — The Business Creditor’s Arsenal

A payment order does not require negotiable instruments or invoices signed by the debtor. Any document bearing the debtor’s signature, or the creditor’s commercial books (detailed ledger), will suffice.
According to case law, “a payment order may be issued on the basis of a combination of documents proving the claim, including an e-mail from the debtor, a simple signed document acknowledging the debt, or the electronically maintained detailed ledger of the creditor business.” The range of acceptable evidence is therefore broader than commonly assumed.
Read more: Cancellation of Bank/Servicer Payment Order — upd. Dec 2025

Payment order No. 11529/2021 of the Athens Single-Member Court of First Instance ordered payment of approximately €200,000 arising from a sale agreement. The critical legal issue was the evidentiary value of an electronic document bearing a simple electronic signature.
The judge accepted “that even an electronic signature consisting of a simple reference to the issuer’s surname at the end of the electronic document can support a payment order application as a mechanical reproduction (Article 444 para. 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure).” An advanced electronic signature is not required — a simple one suffices.
Read more: Payment Order of €200,000 Based on Simple Electronic Signature

Law 5221/2025 (in force from 1 January 2026) transfers “competence to issue payment orders from the court to lawyers, a development expected to accelerate the process.” A critical change: “grounds challenging the validity of the payment order can no longer be raised in the subsequent enforcement proceedings” (new Article 933 para. 4 CCP).
Read more: Cancellation of Bank/Servicer Payment Order — upd. Dec 2025

Compulsory enforcement constitutes “the ultimate weapon in the creditor’s quiver.” The CCP offers numerous tools: (a) seizure of movable property (securities, shares, company interests, goods, vehicles, cash), (b) seizure of immovable property and auction, (c) seizure in the hands of a third party (bank deposits, claims against third parties), and (d) compulsory administration of the debtor’s business.
In compulsory administration “the creditor may take over management of the debtor’s business until the full amount owed is recovered” — particularly useful when real property is mortgaged to third parties and an auction would yield no practical result for the creditor.
Read more: Compulsory Enforcement — NPLs & Auctions (Specialty Area)

“Third-party seizure is a particularly powerful weapon for creditors, as it can secure immediate and effective satisfaction of monetary claims. Under the amendments introduced by Law 5282/2026 to the CCP, it is now effected by the bailiff drawing up a seizure report, following a relevant instruction from the creditor’s attorney (Article 983 CCP).”
Critical detail: “failure to observe the exclusive 8-day deadline for notifying the debtor results in absolute nullity.” An increasing number of creditors now target online sales platforms (e.g. Skroutz.gr) as third parties, significantly expanding the enforcement net.
Read more: Third-Party Seizure — The Online Marketplace Example

In a department store receivables case (~€200,000 claim), the counterparty systematically concealed income through family companies and e-money institutions. After five court proceedings, it became possible to impose precautionary seizure on all connected companies.
“It is not uncommon for debtors to hide behind corporate structures or to have fraudulently transferred assets to third parties. Greek law offers solutions through the institutions of tort liability (CC Arts. 914 and 919), piercing of the corporate veil, and the pauliana action. Systematic persistence and legal creativity are the key variables.”
Read more: Compulsory Collection after Repeated Income Concealment

In a tenant-debtor case, a Private Company (IKE) was identified which the counterparty “had set up and was using abusively, circumventing the principle of legal personality separation, with the aim of frustrating satisfaction of the claim.” Precautionary seizure of the IKE’s assets followed, leading to full settlement.
“Our experience teaches us that sound procedural choices can create liability for legal entities — reverse piercing of the corporate veil — where, apparently, it is impossible. The application of appropriate, always legally permissible pressure leads to compliance even from the most recalcitrant debtors.”
Read more: Collection from an Individual with No Visible Personal Assets
 

Precautionary seizure is an interim measure that “freezes” the debtor’s assets — real property, movables, and bank deposits — securing future recovery while simultaneously applying pressure on the debtor for settlement. Whereas formerly a creditor awaited a final judgment, today they may proceed with precautionary seizure even on the basis of a first-instance declaratory judgment.
Read more: Compulsory Collection against Company Representative with Precautionary Seizure

Yes. The Athens Court of First Instance issued an interim measures order directing precautionary seizure of all movable and immovable property of a Private Company (IKE) incorporated by an individual debtor to frustrate satisfaction of the creditor’s claim.
Read more: Precautionary Seizure against Fraudulently Incorporated IKE

Article 479 of the Civil Code provides that “where a person transfers the whole or the most significant assets of their property or business, parallel liability arises for both the transferor and the transferee.” The Court of Appeal confirmed this in a lighting-supply case (~€200,000 in cheques).
“Debtors frequently entrench themselves behind limited-liability companies or channel assets of the debtor company to another company, believing they will not be discovered. In such cases, meticulous investigation of every detail to identify enforcement assets is of the utmost importance.”
Read more: Collection from Successor Company — Clientele Transfer

Under Article 939 CC, “any creditor may seek judicial annulment of a debtor’s act that is prejudicial to creditors, provided the debtor acted with intent to harm and the third-party transferee was aware of that intent.” Limitation period: 5 years from the date the act was completed (Article 946 CC).
Per Supreme Court Plenary 15/2012, “the pauliana action does not render the act null and void but makes it unenforceable against the claimant-creditor.” In practice the creditor can execute against the transferred assets as though the transfer had never occurred.
Read more: The Defence of the Respondent in the Fraudulent Transfer Action

Under Article 952 CCP, the debtor may be compelled, upon the creditor’s application, to submit a detailed list of all their assets with precise indication of their location. The list is sworn on oath.
The purpose of the provision is more complete creditor protection, transparency in enforcement proceedings, and combating fraudulent tactics by the debtor.
Read more: Compulsory Enforcement — NPLs & Auctions (Specialty Area)

In Greek law the general rule is a twenty-year limitation period for contractual claims (Article 249 CC). However, “numerous special provisions prescribe shorter periods” (see e.g. claims from sale of goods, rent, loan instalments, etc. — Article 250 CC).
Critical: “limitation is interrupted by filing a lawsuit, by service of the payment order, and by any act of acknowledgement by the debtor (Articles 260-262 CC).” The recent Athens MC 3878/2025 confirmed these principles in the commercial context.
Read more: Loan Limitation Periods: The Time Limits You Need to Know (Sept 2025)

Regulation (EU) 655/2014 establishes the European Account Preservation Order (EAPO), allowing a creditor of a civil or commercial claim to freeze bank accounts held by the debtor in another EU Member State even before the main proceedings are concluded, preventing the removal or transfer of funds.
Illustrative example: the Thessaloniki Court of First Instance issued an EAPO under Regulation (EU) 655/2014 to freeze bank accounts held by a debtor in Bulgarian banks. The tool is limited to cross-border cases within the EU.
Read more: EAPO Issued Against Accounts Held in Bulgarian Banks