Civil Judicial Differences: United States Vs. Greece

Civil Judicial Differences: United States Vs. Greece

In my personal life for the last year, I have gained some experience with foreign, civil law in an ongoing familial suit. To give some background on the suit ("funeral suit"), it is regarding an alleged breach of oral contract that happened four years ago where the plaintiff's complaint was that the defendant would repay all funeral expenses while the defendant's answer was that she never knew about the expenses, funeral, or agreed to pay anything as she was never spoken with before the funeral occurred, gave consent or agreed to pay the funeral expenses. Through this case, I have learned that Greece's civil law procedure greatly differs from the Unites States' procedure from the statute of limitations, to negotiations, to aspects of discovery and the trial itself. I will compare and contrast these differences and apply them to this case to show how the procedure would differ, and potentially alter the outcome of the suit, if it had happened in the United States rather than Athens, Greece.

To begin a suit, the suit must be within the statute of limitations otherwise there is a high likelihood the suit may be dismissed. By definition the statute of limitations begins at the time of the injury and will limit the time within the injured party can file suit. In the United States, the statute of limitations vary depending on the type of suit: an oral contract is typically within three years, a sale of goods contract is typically within four years, and other written contracts can be within five years[1]. In Greece, though, no distinction is made regarding the type of suit: all limitation statutes are within five years. Therefore, if the funeral suit had taken place in United States, it would have most likely been dismissed on the basis that it was not filed within the time limits but two years afterwards[2].

Many times alternate dispute resolutions, such as mediation, are used - and in some cases preferred - for civil cases. In the U.S., if a settlement is agreed on through mediation, where a neutral third party mediates a voluntary settlement between the parties, the case is now over once the proper papers have been filed with the court and the proper parties paid. In Greece, though, even if you have negotiated a settlement, which both sides have agreed upon and had documents executed, the plaintiff still as the right to take the defendant to court for the remainder of the claim: it is then up to the judge to determine if the settled upon amount was fair. Therefore, it would appear that mediation is not a useful tool in the Greek judicial system as it is one sided, in favor of only the plaintiff. If the funeral suit had happened in the United States, it is likely that mediation would be at least attempted as it would be beneficial for both sides.

The discovery portion of the suit, the pre-trial opportunity for either side to collect relevant information to help their suit, differs greatly between the United States and Greece as well. In the United States there are a slew of different forms one can use in discovery: interrogatories, depositions, production of documents and things, physical and mental examinations and e-discovery. In Greece, the only forms that can be used are depositions and witnesses. There are further limitations for depositions and witnesses in that only five witnesses or depositions are admissible per side and if a witness is called in court only the judge is allowed to question, though, attorneys are allowed to redirect by asking questions to clarify a response in their favor. If the funeral suit happened in the United States either side could look for and use anything relevant in discovery to prove with evidence that their side should win, whether that meant subpoenaing records or going through e-discovery for emails that could be useful. In the U.S., the plaintiff has the burden of proof where they need to have a preponderance of evidence, the "51-49" persuasion, to win their case. Since Greece does not allow evidence to be used, only witness testimony and depositions, no preponderance of evidence is necessary to win the case. By making the production of documents and things, physical and mental examinations, and e-discovery inadmissible it weakens both sides and does not allow all evidence to be presented which could change the outcome of any case.

Not only could lack of evidence change the outcome of a case but how the structure of a suit is heard could change the outcome as well. In U.S. civil suits, between the amount of $3,000 and $10,000 depending on the state[3], both the plaintiff and defendant have the right to a jury. In Greece, only criminal trials are afforded the right of a jury. Though there is no jury trial, attorneys in Greece are still allowed to have an opening statement and a closing argument which is helpful if judge had not had the opportunity to get through the attorney briefs before the trial. In the United States, the adversary system presumes that by putting witnesses on the stand, which could include the plaintiff and defendant, and allowing both attorneys to question through direct and cross examination, the truth will surface. Greece does not abide by this system for civil trials. Therefore, if the funeral suit were to take place in the United States a jury of 12 peers, with varying personalities and thoughts, would decide the verdict on the suit instead of just one judge which could wildly alter the verdict of a case.

Going through these large dissimilarities between the United States and Greece gives some insight into their judicial system. Neither system is better or worse; it is simply what one is accustomed to. There is no guarantee that one system is more efficient than the other or would that the verdict would be different between the countries. There are pros and cons to each: the Unite States civil system seems more thorough as it wants to gather as much evidence as possible to prove its case while the Greek system seems to take less time and, potentially, cost less as there is very little discovery and time in court. My preference is for the U.S. judicial system, as I believe that by only relying on witness depositions and testimony, which can be flawed due to human error or simple lying, and not taking actual evidence into account is to either side's disadvantage.

[1] http://www.alqlist.com/SOL.asp

[2] The statute of limitations in California for oral agreements is two years. http://www.courts.ca.gov/9618.html

[3] http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/small-claims-suits-how-much-30031.html