EPPPL 2025: Μεταρρυθμίσεις στις Δημόσιες Συμβάσεις με τον Νόμο 5218/2025

EPPPL 2025

Report from Greece

Recent public procurement developments – Law 5218/2025

Dr. Stylianos (Stelios) Tsevas

Attorney-at-law, PhD Public Law (University of Athens),

PgD Public Procurement (King’s College London)

Naya Roupina

Attorney-at-law, LLM (c.) Public Law (University of Athens)

    I.        Introduction

In July 2025, the Greek Parliament enacted Law 5218/2025 (Government Gazette A’ 125/14.7.2025, hereinafter “the Law”), introducing a series of amendments to the public procurement framework governed by Law 4412/2016. These reforms mainly concern: a) the preparation and award of public contracts (Articles 9-19) and b) the legal protection in the field of public procurement (Articles 20-34). The purpose of this report is to present and evaluate the most significant reforms introduced by the said Law 5218/2025.

  II.        Presentation of the reforms

A)    Amendments concerning the preparation and award of public contracts

The reforms aim to simplify the preparation and award of public contracts and to eliminate distortions that hinder the development of international competition in public procurement.[1] For this purpose:

    i.       The Law abolishes the mandatory use of the digital National Public Procurement System (hereinafter “ESIDIS”) for the submission of bids in direct award procedures for contracts with an estimated value between thirty thousand euros (€30,000) and sixty thousand euros (€60,000).[2] It is noted that the compulsory use of ESIDIS already applied to contracts with an estimated value of up to thirty thousand euros (€30,000). This amendment reduces the bureaucratic burdens of the award procedure without compromising transparency, since, under the previous framework, the use of ESIDIS was required for the conduct of relevant procedures and not for ensuring publicity, which is provided through the Central Electronic Register of Public Procurement (hereinafter “KIMDIS”).[3]

    ii.        An equivalent conformity assessment body is also considered to be one established in a country that is not a member state of the European Union, accredited by a national accreditation body likewise established outside of the European Union, and which is a member of the European Accreditation Multilateral Agreement (EA MLA) or the International Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation (ILAC) or the International Accreditation Forum Multilateral Recognition Agreement (IAF MRA).[4] This reform facilitates the participation of economic operators established in non-EU countries in public procurement procedures in Greece.

   iii.        Τhe existing central committee responsible for examining self-cleaning measures (after the awarding authority has found grounds for exclusion) is divided in two (2) thematic committees, one responsible for supply and service contracts and another for public works, studies, technical and other related scientific services.[5] This reorganization seeks to enhance the committee’s effectiveness and expedite the issuance of their decisions.[6]

   iv.        For contracts with an estimated value below thirty thousand euros (€30,000) contracting authorities shall verify only the grounds for exclusion that are described by the Law 4412/2016 as mandatory instead of checking also the potential exclusion grounds.[7]

    v.        A legal presumption is introduced concerning the validity of the evidence submitted by the temporary contractor at the award stage. The evidence is presumed valid at the time of signing the European Single Procurement Document (hereinafter “ESPD”) by the candidate economic operator. This presumption is rebuttable and may be challenged either by the contracting authority on its own initiative, where reasonable doubt exists, or by other bidders through the lodging of a prejudicial appeal before the Hellenic Single Public Procurement Authority (hereinafter “HSPPA”).[8] The purpose of this legal presumption is to safeguard the public interest, which may be undermined by reduced competition and limited participation of small and medium-sized enterprises. Nonetheless, the ability of both the contracting authority and the economic operators to rebut the presumption is essential to safeguard transparency, equal treatment, and the protection of public interest.[9]  

   vi.        Financial offers in the procurement of goods and services may be structured as unit prices or as discount percentages on estimated unit prices or contract values, thereby allowing contracting authorities greater flexibility in designing award procedures.[10]

  vii.        The provisions allowing contracting authorities to award contracts for smaller or larger quantities of goods or services than those specified in the contract are repealed. Contracting authorities may, however, modify the quantities of goods or services included in a contract, where such modifications are expressly provided in clear, precise, and explicit review clauses in the initial contract documents.[11] This amendment promotes the fundamental principles of legal certainty and predictability in public procurement.  

viii.        The entire tender notice- and not merely a summary- must be published on the National Transparency Platform called “DIAVGEIA”, in order to enhance publicity, as well as simplicity and uniformity, since an equivalent obligation already applies to publication on KIMDIS (a specialized platform for public contracts).[12]

   ix.        Financial sanctions not exceeding two percent (2%) of the contract value, imposed against an economic operator for improper compliance with a requirement under a previous public contract, may be decided that it does not constitute a serious deficiency justifying exclusion from participation, provided that the economic operator has paid the contracting authority the full amount.

B)       Amendments concerning the legal protection in the field of public procurement

The objective of the following amendments is to strengthen the speed and effectiveness of legal protection mechanisms by preventing dilatory prejudicial and judicial appeals. For this purpose:

     i.        The process for obtaining the assent of the HSPPA for contracting authorities wishing to use the negotiated procedure for the award of public contracts is expedited by reducing the authority’s deadline to provide its assent from twenty (20) to ten (10) days and by shortening the possible extension of this deadline from fifteen (15) to five (5) days.[13]

    ii.        Due to the increased number of prejudicial appeals filed before the HSPPA, the number of advisors and members is increased by two (2) and four (4) respectively, to enhance the authority’s effectiveness and improve the quality and timeliness of its decisions.[14]

   iii.        The deadline for filing a prejudicial appeal against a tender notice is set at fifteen (15) days from the date of its publication on KIMDIS, thereby replacing the previous presumption of full knowledge of the tender notice after the lapse of fifteen (15) days. This aims to prevent the submission of prejudicial appeals only a few days before the deadline for tender submission, which causes significant procedural delays, especially when such appeals are filed solely for delaying purposes for the sake of delay.[15]

   iv.        The deadlines for filing prejudicial appeals are suspended in the event of a technical failure of ESIDIS, which must be announced and certified in advance. If the technical failure occurs unexpectedly, the appeal shall be submitted to HSPPA by e-mail, and the technical failure shall be certified retrospectively.[16] This provision addresses a previous legislative gap concerning the filing of prejudicial appeals in cases of ESIDIS malfunction.[17]

    v.        The length of a prejudicial appeal shall not exceed twenty-five (25) pages. Exceeding the page limit is permitted only in exceptional circumstances, particularly where the appeal challenges compliance with multiple technical specifications. If the appellant fails to comply with a request to reduce the length of the appeal, a fee equal to twice the initial filing fee shall be imposed.[18] Given that many appeals previously reached an average of fifty (50) to one hundred (100) pages, rendering it impossible to issue a decision within the exclusive sixty (60)- day period from the filing of the appeal, this amendment ensures that decisions are issued within the prescribed timeframe.[19]

   vi.        Suspension of the contested act in the context of a prejudicial appeal before HSPPA shall be granted only in cases of extreme urgency. The suspension decision may specify appropriate measures and may also order the lifting of the prohibition of the conclusion of the contract. A specific reason for lifting the prohibition is the manifestly inadmissible or manifestly unfounded nature of the prejudicial appeal, which need only be briefly stated.[20] This is justified because the automatic suspension of contract signing in such manifestly inadmissible or manifestly unfounded prejudicial appeals leads to unjustified delays in the completion of the tender procedures.[21]

  vii.        The deadlines for examining prejudicial appeals and issuing HSPPA decisions are suspended from August five (5) to August twenty (20). During this period, urgent prejudicial appeals, requests for suspension of the tender procedure, and requests for interim measures in procedures of public interest or those financed, in whole or in part, by the Recovery and Resilience Fund, shall be examined by HSPPA Suspension Panels.[22]

viii.        Where the court overturns a HSPPA decision and refers the case back to it for a new ruling, a new fee of the same amount shall be paid if the original fee has been refunded. Where the court overturns the decision without referring the case back to the Authority for a new ruling, it shall also determine the fate of the fee paid for the prejudicial appeal and not refunded. If the court omits such a determination, HSPPA shall refund the fee upon the interested party’s request.[23]

   ix.        The correction of errors, typographical or accounting mistakes, or obvious inaccuracies in the drafting and issuance of HSPPA decisions is now expressly provided for.[24] This accelerates the legal protection in the pre-contractual stage, as it eliminates the need to resort to the courts for such corrections.[25]

    x.        The contracting authority, and not HSPPA, is now responsible for transmitting the case file to the court, which is reasonable since the contracting authority manages the tender and therefore possesses the relevant documentation.[26]

   xi.        To prevent dilatory judicial appeals, the fee payable for filing such an appeal is increased from 0.1% to 0.5% of the estimated contract value. The minimum fee threshold rises from five hundred euros (€500) to one thousand five hundred euros (€1.500) and the maximum fee threshold from five thousand euros (€5.000) to thirty thousand euros (€30.000).[27] This significant increase, in combination with the fee for filing a prejudicial appeal, discourages the economic operators from engaging in these legal procedures.

III.        Evaluation of the amendments

It is evident that most amendments introduced by the new Law aim to accelerate and simplify the public procurement procedures. In particular, the establishment of two committees responsible for examining self-cleaning measures and the increase in the number of HSPPA advisors and members are consistent with these objectives, as they contribute to faster decision-making in public tender procedures. Another positive development is the repeal of the provisions allowing deviations from contractual quantities, which enhances legal certainty and predictability. Moreover, the publication of the entire tender notice on DIAVGEIA strengthens transparency and accessibility. The suspension of deadlines for filing prejudicial appeals in the event of an ESIDIS technical failure also fills a previous legislative gap, resolves practical issues, and reinforces effective judicial protection.

Nevertheless, while several amendments undoubtedly promote the acceleration of the proceedings, certain provisions may undermine effective judicial protection. In particular, the substantial increase in the judicial appeal fee constitutes a serious obstacle to the exercise of the right of access to the courts and may, in some cases, render recourse to legal remedies practically impossible for economic operators. It remains to be determined whether the reforms will achieve their intended goals without compromising fundamental principles of public procurement once implemented in practice.