Introduction. The recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments constitute an important subject of private international law. Their significance is particularly evident in family law disputes, such as divorce, child custody, and maintenance, in which the effectiveness of a judicial decision frequently depends on its recognition or enforcement in more than one legal system. In relations between Greece and Albania, a principal legal instrument is the Convention on Judicial Assistance in Civil and Criminal Matters, signed on 17 May 1993 and ratified by Law No. 2311/1995. The Convention establishes the conditions under which judgments delivered by the courts of one Contracting State may be recognised and enforced in the other. By virtue of the superior force accorded to international conventions that have been ratified and brought into force under Article 28(1) of the Greek Constitution, the relevant provisions of the Convention take precedence over the corresponding general provisions of the Greek Code of Civil Procedure (CCP). Against this background, the present analysis examines indicatively two decisions of the Thessaloniki Court of First Instance concerning the recognition in Greece of judgments delivered by Albanian courts dissolving marriages. The first decision also concerns an application for a declaration of enforceability in respect of a provision relating to child maintenance. The second highlights the importance of establishing the final and irrevocable character of a foreign divorce judgment and the need to supplement the evidence before a final determination can be made.

Legal Framework of the Bilateral Convention. The Greece–Albania Convention, ratified by Law No. 2311/1995, constitutes the special legal framework governing the recognition and enforcement of judgments. Articles 23 and 24 establish the substantive requirements for recognition and enforcement, while Articles 26 and 27 govern the procedure and related matters concerning the submission and examination of applications. Articles 323 and 905 CCP apply on a supplementary basis, insofar as they are not inconsistent with the Convention. Article 323 CCP sets out, inter alia, the conditions for recognising the res judicata effect of foreign judgments, whereas Article 905 CCP provides for the procedure by which foreign instruments may be declared enforceable in Greece.

1.1. Conditions for Recognition and Enforcement, Under Articles 23 and 24 of the Convention, recognition and enforcement are, in principle, subject to the following conditions:

The judgment has acquired the force of res judicata and is enforceable under the law of the state in which it was delivered.

The courts of the state in which recognition or enforcement is sought do not have exclusive international jurisdiction over the matter.

A party who did not participate in the proceedings or against whom judgment was entered in default was duly and timely served with the relevant process or was lawfully represented, where required.

The Convention excludes service by affixing the document to the door of the relevant premises (affixation service) as a sufficient method of service for the purposes of this examination.

There is no irreconcilable prior judgment between the same parties concerning the same subject matter and cause of action, nor any previously instituted pending action before the courts of the state in which recognition is sought, subject to the conditions laid down in the Convention.

Recognition or enforcement is not contrary to the public policy or fundamental principles of the legal order of the requested state.

Recognition additionally requires examination of the international jurisdiction of the court of origin in accordance with the applicable treaty and domestic legal framework. The foreign judgment may not be reviewed as to the substantive correctness of its determination. The examination concerns the legal requirements governing the circulation of the judgment across borders, rather than a retrial of the original dispute.

1.2. Required Documents and Procedure. Article 26(2) of the Convention provides that an application must be accompanied by the judgment or a certified copy thereof, together with a document certifying that the judgment has acquired the force of res judicata and is enforceable, unless these matters are apparent from the judgment itself. A certificate concerning service of process and the lawful representation of a party against whom judgment was entered in default must also be submitted, where applicable, together with certified translations of the documents into a language accepted under the Convention. The production of an Apostille under the Hague Convention may serve to authenticate a public document where the relevant international convention applies. It does not, however, establish, by itself, that a judgment has become final and irrevocable or that all the requirements have been satisfied.

Decision No. 3144/2026. Decision No. 3144/2026 concerns an application by a Greek national seeking recognition in Greece of a judgment delivered by the Court of General Jurisdiction of Elbasan, Albania. The Albanian judgment dissolved the applicant’s marriage, awarded custody of the minor child to his former wife, and regulated the father’s right of contact with the child. In addition, the applicant sought a declaration of enforceability in respect of the provision which, according to the terms of his application, required him to pay monthly maintenance. The Albanian judgment had become final and irrevocable, as indicated by an endorsement appearing on the judgment itself.

2.1. Application of the Convention. The court held that the Convention ratified by Law No. 2311/1995 took precedence over the general provisions of the CCP. It examined whether the Albanian court possessed international jurisdiction, whether the parties’ right to participate in the proceedings had been safeguarded, and whether any ground existed for refusing recognition on public policy grounds. With regard to international jurisdiction, the court took into account that the spouses’ last common residence had been in the Municipality of Gramsh, Albania. It held that the matrimonial dispute fell within the jurisdiction of the Albanian court and that the joinder of the issues of custody and contact with the matrimonial dispute justified their examination by the same court. As regards the right to be heard, the court established that the former wife had been represented by a lawyer authorised to act on her behalf and that the applicant had participated in an earlier hearing at which an attempt at reconciliation had been made. He had been informed of the subsequent hearing date and had stated that he was unable to attend, requesting that the proceedings continue in his absence. Although the applicant was recorded as having been absent from the hearing, the court held that, in light of the specific circumstances, no additional certificate of service was required. This conclusion was based on his knowledge of the proceedings and the fact that he had had a genuine opportunity to participate.

2.2. The Enforcement of Maintenance Provision. The most significant issue arising from the decision concerns the application for a declaration of enforceability in respect of the maintenance provision. The court dismissed this part of the application as inadmissible for lack of standing. The reasoning was that the right to apply for a foreign instrument to be declared enforceable generally belongs to the person entitled to initiate enforcement proceedings, namely the creditor in respect of the relevant claim. In the present case, the applicant was the person liable to pay maintenance, rather than the person entitled to receive it. Accordingly, he could not himself seek to have the obligation to pay maintenance declared enforceable against him. The court’s determination is correct insofar as it distinguishes between creditor and debtor for the purposes of standing. It should be clarified that dismissal of this particular claim does not mean that the maintenance provision was held to be invalid or legally ineffective. Rather, it means that the application was brought by a person who lacked standing to seek the particular procedural relief requested.

2.3. Assessment. Decision No. 3144/2026 correctly applies the fundamental principle that an applicable international convention takes precedence over the general rules of the CCP. It also highlights the importance of the party’s genuine opportunity to participate in the foreign proceedings and the distinction between recognition of personal status and enforcement of a monetary claim. A particularly positive aspect of the Court’s approach is its recognition that an application for recognition should not be dismissed solely on account of formal evidentiary deficiencies without first examining whether the relevant facts can be established through other reliable documents. Nevertheless, dispensing with the production of a certificate of service must be approached with caution. The Convention seeks to provide substantive protection for a party who did not participate in the proceedings. The decision promotes effective cross-border protection of family relationships while preserving procedural guarantees required for recognition of foreign judgments.

3; Decision No. 20256/2026. Thessaloniki First Instance Court

3.1. Subject Matter and Facts. Decision No. 20256/2026 concerns an application for recognition in Greece of a judgment d...

Conflict of Laws

Message History

Delivery option(s)