Article 116 para. 1 of the Greek Code of Civil Procedure (Good Faith Conduct of Proceedings)
Pursuant to Article 116(1) of the Greek Code of Civil Procedure (GCCP) (Good Faith Conduct of Proceedings):
“The parties, their legal representatives and their attorneys are obliged to comply with the rules of good morals and good faith, to refrain from acts that manifestly lead to delaying the proceedings, and to set out the facts of the case exactly as they know them, fully and truthfully, avoiding ambiguous or vague expressions.”
According to the settled case law of the Areios Pagos (Greek Supreme Court), this provision aims at restricting the abuse of procedural rights and imposes upon litigants the duty to observe the principles of good morals and good faith when performing procedural acts. It further establishes, as a genuine obligation (and not merely a procedural burden), the duty of truthfulness.
This duty prohibits the aforementioned persons:
from asserting untrue factual allegations which they know to be false; and
from disputing factual allegations of the opposing party while knowing them to be true
Accordingly, a breach of this duty presupposes conscious falsehood (intentional deceit).
Such breach entails an obligation to compensate the opposing party either:
on the basis of tort (Article 914 of the Greek Civil Code), or
on the basis of conduct contrary to good morals (Article 919 of the Greek Civil Code)
provided that such claim does not conflict with the res judicata effect of the final judgment issued in the original proceedings (e.g., where an action filed in breach of the duty of truthfulness was dismissed by a final judgment as substantively unfounded).
In such a case, the injured party may claim:
compensation for pecuniary damage exceeding the amount covered by court costs, provided that a causal link exists between the breach and the damage; and
monetary satisfaction for infringement of personality rights (Article 59 GCC) and, more generally, compensation for non-pecuniary damage (Article 932 GCC),
since such an action for damages does not contradict the substantive res judicata but runs parallel to it (AP 1480/2017).
Disciplinary Fines (Article 205 GCCP)
Article 205 GCCP (Monetary Penalties) provides:
“The court shall, ex officio and by its final decision, impose on a party or its legal representative or attorney, depending on each one’s responsibility, a monetary penalty from one thousand (1,000) euros to two thousand five hundred (2,500) euros, payable to the State as public revenue, if it emerges from the proceedings that, although aware thereof:
(1) they filed a manifestly unfounded action, counterclaim, intervention or manifestly unfounded legal remedy; or
(2) they conducted the proceedings in a dilatory manner or failed to comply with the rules of good morals, good faith, or the duty of truthfulness.
A copy of this decision shall be immediately communicated to the Ministry of Finance by the court registry.”
This provision, harmonized with Article 116 GCCP, establishes — solely for the safeguarding of procedural order and without affecting the substance of the judgment — a mandatory obligation of the court (and not a discretionary power) to impose a monetary penalty where procedural conduct adversely affects the administration of justice.
A key prerequisite for the imposition of the disciplinary fine under Article 205 GCCP is fault in the form of direct intent (dolus directus); conditional intent or gross negligence is insufficient (AP 602/2016; AP 1443/2014).
Jurisdiction to determine whether the conditions for the application of Article 205 GCCP are met lies with the court that rendered the final decision on the manifestly inadmissible or unfounded action or legal remedy, as it possesses the relevant factual background necessary to assess the procedural conduct (AP 1472/2010).
Compensation under Article 914 GCC (Tort Liability)
According to the case law of the Areios Pagos, breach of the duty of truthfulness entails an obligation to compensate the opposing party on the basis of tort (Article 914 GCC), including monetary satisfaction for infringement of personality rights (Articles 59 and 932 GCC), where the elements of the criminal offence of fraud upon the court — or its attempt — are established.
Under Article 386 of the Greek Penal Code, the offence of fraud — which simultaneously constitutes a tort under Article 914 GCC — requires:α
1. Intent to obtain unlawful pecuniary benefit for oneself or another (actual acquisition of the benefit is not required);
2. Knowingly presenting false facts as true or unlawfully concealing or suppressing true facts, thereby misleading another person into an act, omission, or tolerance; and
3. Damage to another’s property, causally linked to the deceptive conduct.
Damage includes any reduction in total property value, deterioration of the current financial situation, or even exposure to future financial risk, such as involvement in costly litigation.
Fraud may also be committed by misleading the judge in civil proceedings, including by submitting false allegations supported by knowingly false evidence (forged or falsified documents, or genuine documents with false content, false witness testimony, etc.).
Fraud upon the court is completed when, due to false allegations and false evidence, a final judgment is issued in favour of the perpetrator (or another) to the detriment of the opposing party. An attempt occurs where the judge is not misled and dismisses the action as unfounded (AP 238/2015, Criminal Division).
However, the mere submission of untrue allegations without invoking and producing knowingly false evidence does not constitute the commencement of execution required for an attempt under Article 42(1) of the Penal Code (AP 512/2011, Criminal Division).
Fraud upon the court may also be committed through unlawful concealment or suppression of a material fact, provided that:
such concealment is capable of misleading the court into issuing a prejudicial decision;
the perpetrator acted with intent to obtain unlawful pecuniary benefit; and
the remaining objective and subjective elements of fraud are satisfied, including the invocation and production of false evidence (e.g., AP 997/2025; Athens Court of Appeal 2144/2024; Piraeus Court of Appeal 339/2020).
Civil Consequences Without Criminal Fraud
Therefore, where parties, legal representatives, or attorneys breach the duty of truthfulness under Article 116 GCCP by advancing false or bad-faith allegations or suppressing the truth, without invoking and producing false evidence, they are subject to the sanctions of Article 205 GCCP, but not to criminal prosecution for fraud upon the court.
In such cases, the breach entails only civil procedural consequences. This interpretation is also supported by Article 205 GCCP, which reflects the legislature’s intent not to criminalize mere violations of the duty of truthfulness. The disciplinary fine under Article 205 GCCP would otherwise be devoid of purpose if every breach of the duty of truthfulness constituted criminal fraud.
Liability under Article 919 GCC (Contrary to Good Morals)
Nevertheless, if a claimant, in breach of the duty of truthfulness, files a manifestly unfounded action causing damage to the defendant, without committing fraud upon the court, tort liability may arise under Article 919 GCC (conduct contrary to good morals), provided that:
the breach was intentional and contrary to good morals;
the claimant acted with intent to cause moral and financial harm to the defendant;
a causal link exists between the conduct and the damage; and the claim does not conflict with the res judicata of the final judgment (Athens Court of Appeal 362/2017).
