Construction Law.

It depends on how well-defined the scope is and who is better placed to carry cost risk. A fixed-price contract gives budget certainty and pushes cost overrun risk onto the contractor, but only works well where the scope is tightly and accurately defined at the outset — any material change needs a clear variation mechanism or disputes over pricing follow. A cost-plus structure gives the employer more flexibility to change the design as the project develops, in exchange for retaining cost risk, and depends heavily on robust cost-certification and audit rights being built into the contract. Larger or less-defined projects often end up using a hybrid, with a fixed-price core and cost-plus provisional sums for defined risk items.

The defects liability period (DLP) is the window after practical completion during which the contractor remains obligated to return and remedy defects that appear in the works, rather than the employer having to pursue a fresh claim for each one. Its length is a matter of contract rather than a fixed statutory period, though twelve months is a common starting point for building works, sometimes extended for specific elements such as mechanical and electrical installations. The snagging list agreed at practical completion, and how rigorously it is followed up, generally matters more to the outcome than the headline length of the period itself.

Generally yes, provided the clause is drafted as a genuine pre-estimate of the loss likely to flow from delay rather than as a punitive penalty — Greek courts retain the power to reduce a penalty clause they consider manifestly excessive, so the drafting and the underlying rationale for the daily or weekly rate matter. A well-drafted liquidated damages clause, paired with a clear and workable extension-of-time mechanism so the contractor is not penalised for employer-caused or excusable delay, is generally upheld and is one of the more effective tools for keeping a project on schedule.

Yes, and FIDIC forms are routinely used for larger or internationally-financed projects in Greece, particularly where an international lender, contractor or operator expects a familiar international standard form. The form cannot simply be dropped in unamended, however — particular articles need to interface correctly with mandatory provisions of Greek law, including around termination, liability caps and dispute resolution, and the governing law and forum clauses need to be considered carefully alongside any FIDIC-standard arbitration mechanism. Done properly, a FIDIC-based contract works well on Greek sites; done as a pure import, it tends to create ambiguity exactly where a dispute later needs clarity.

This is common — designs evolve during construction, and what ends up built does not always match the original άδεια δόμησης exactly. The correct response is a permit amendment application filed before, or as soon as possible after, the divergence occurs, rather than proceeding and hoping the discrepancy goes unnoticed at completion. An unregularised divergence between the built structure and the permit can block the certificate of completion, complicate a later sale, and in some cases expose the works to a stop-work order or demolition risk, so this is worth raising with counsel the moment a design change is contemplated, not after it has already been built.

It depends on what the contract itself provides for. Many construction contracts, particularly FIDIC-based ones, include a tiered dispute mechanism — engineer's determination or adjudication first, followed by arbitration if the dispute is not resolved — while Civil Code-based domestic contracts more often default to the ordinary courts unless an arbitration clause has been specifically agreed. Adjudication and arbitration are generally faster and allow for a decision-maker with genuine construction expertise, which matters for technical disputes over defects or delay; litigation remains necessary for some disputes and as the enforcement route behind an arbitral award. We coordinate directly with the firm's litigation team so a dispute can move to court or arbitration without losing time or continuity if a negotiated resolution is not reached.