Research report · EU Member States

EmpCo implementation across the EU-27

Explore the national-source research behind Directive (EU) 2024/825, country by country.

Greece: retained research

View the complete 27-country report

Statuses describe research readiness. They are not scores or legislative conclusions.

Greece

In plain English

Source check: 2026-09-10 · Source access limited. The finding is limited to the cited evidence.

What we found
The retained Greek dossier identifies a later law changing the timing of the earlier claim provisions. The official Gazette interface did not expose the document, and the recorded PDF could not be retrieved in this check.
Why it matters
Reading only the first law would miss a later change to when the relevant provisions apply.
Scope of this finding
The two-law timing explanation remains dated research. This check provides no new confirmation of the full Greek text or subsequent amendments.

Greece · substantive country analysis

Two laws are needed to explain the Greek position

The retained Greek evidence contains Law 5317/2026 in FEK A 108 and Law 5326/2026 in FEK A 125. The first supplies the substantive EmpCo amendments; the second changes their application timing. Both authentic artifacts were captured in August. Fresh retrieval did not expose readable legal text in this check, so this report labels the analysis as retained evidence rather than a new consolidation review. Citing only the first law would omit a material part of the chronology.

Use exact Greek locators, not approximate article labels

The later family packages refine the broad country handoff: Law 5317 Article 86 maps the definitions in Law 2251/1994 Article 9α, while Article 89 inserts the listed practices in Article 9στ. Generic claims use item ιβ) and offset-based product-GHG claims item ιδ). Greek-letter locators are part of the provenance. Converting them casually to an English alphabet label can make a citation point to the wrong provision, especially where an older broad handoff used only an approximate schedule reference.

The September date has a narrow exception

Law 5326 Article 106 inserts the later timing provision making Part C applicable from 27 September 2026. Its express exception concerns Law 5317 Article 82 and Law 2251 Article 3β(1)(η), not the generic and offset provisions in Articles 86 and 89. The exception must therefore remain its own branch. A country-wide switch saying everything started together would lose the distinction; so would using the exception to delay all environmental-claim provisions.

Match the claim's scope before reviewing support

For the retained generic and offset families, the practical review first preserves the original wording and determines whether it describes a product, an aspect of a product or the business. It then separates the performance evidence from any offset basis. These are proposed review steps, not a finding about the Nespresso report. The exact national definition chain and Greek-language reading remain necessary: an English summary cannot silently expand a product claim to every corporate statement or decide whether the relevant consumer-facing context exists.

What remains before a national conclusion

The remaining source work is a current consolidated-text and later-amendment check, together with Greek-language review and the separately held Article 82 branch. Enforcement powers, penalties and company conclusions are not established by these two bounded claim packages. The report can already show the substantive and timing sources side by side and explain the questions they raise. It must not present the artifact hashes or the number of reviewed documents as legal sign-off or as proof that an uploaded claim has been cleared.

Where a reader can raise a consumer concern

The official consumer-protection portal provides a complaint entry point and information about consumer rights, including unfair practices. This is a practical contact route, not a statement that every EmpCo question falls within one authority's exclusive powers. A user should check the service's current instructions and the nature of the concern before submitting personal material. Sustainability Language does not submit complaints, promise an investigation or treat a report flag as an authority decision; its role here is to preserve the evidence and link to the official route.

August research archive — the detail below records the earlier evidence and review position. The dated source finding above takes precedence only for the points it expressly confirms.

Research status: Review required

Retained research identifies Laws 5317/2026 and 5326/2026. Greek-language review, consolidation and the separate Article 106 timing branch remain outstanding.

Official source recorded for Greece

Retained country research date: . This is a record date, not a fresh verification date.

National instrument and research position

Retained chain: Law 5317/2026 (FEK A 108) and Law 5326/2026 (FEK A 125). Both authentic PDFs and hashes are retained.

Recorded provisions and claim coverage

  • Law 5317 Article 86 inserts the definition chain in Law 2251/1994 Article 9α points ιγ, ιδ and ιζ.
  • Article 89 supplies Article 9στ item ιβ) (generic claims) and ιδ) (offset-based product-GHG claims). Law 5326 Articles 106 and 111 supply corrective timing provenance.

Dates and transition questions

  • Law 5326 Article 106 makes Part C applicable from 27 September 2026; both laws are necessary to understand this date.
  • Its narrow Article 82 / Law 2251 Article 3β(1)(η) exception does not reach Articles 86 or 89.

Country-specific distinctions

  • The original Act alone is not a complete application-date source. Preserve the later timing amendment and Greek-letter locators.

Evidence to gather for review — not a statement of legal duties

  • For a later claim review: retain the exact wording, full presentation, intended audience, communication date and product or business scope. These are review inputs, not a statement that the report alone proves compliance.
  • Retain both Acts, the exact claim-family locator, national definitions and the actual consumer communication.

Unresolved evidence and review gates

  • Greek-language editorial review, consolidation and source admission remain held; the separate Article 82 branch cannot be generalised.
  • Current consolidated text, source-language editorial review and claim-specific scope remain separate checks. This retained research does not activate a country rule or establish a penalty, enforcement outcome or legal verdict.

Retained source dossiers

These links identify the retained repository versions and may require access. Use the official source above for the underlying national source.

Country-specific automated assessment: coverage unavailable pending source and editorial review.

Shared EU framework · not a national compliance result

Consumer-protection checks explained

This chapter explains the EU framework behind the country research. It is included once in the complete report; it does not mean each country's implementing law has been verified for every issue.

This concerns consumer-facing commercial communications. Sustainability reporting is not automatically covered; reusing report statements in consumer advertising can change that.

The explanations describe the shared EU framework, not verified national implementation or a decision on a particular claim. Commission-services explanations are non-binding.

The questions below are suggested review inputs, not additional legal duties or a checklist that guarantees compliance. Check the selected country's evidence, applicable dates and actual communication separately.

Sustainability labels

The EU rule requires a sustainability label to rest on a qualifying certification scheme or be established by a public authority. A self-designed badge is not proof of independent certification.

Questions for the evidence review

  • Is this a voluntary environmental or social badge, or a legally required label?
  • Was it established by a public authority, or does a qualifying third-party certification scheme support it?
  • Are scheme rules public and access transparent, fair and non-discriminatory?
  • Were experts and stakeholders consulted on requirements, and are suspension or withdrawal procedures defined?
  • Is monitoring objective, with the verifier's competence and independence from both scheme owner and trader established?
  • What does the certificate actually cover?

Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition Directive (EU) 2024/825 — enacted textArticle 1(1)(b), Article 1(4) and Annex point (1): UCPD Article 2(q)–(r) and Annex I point 2a. Source checked 2026-09-10.

Broad environmental language

The EU blacklist restricts generic environmental claims unless the trader can demonstrate recognised excellent environmental performance relevant to the claim. A specific, prominently explained claim is different from an unexplained broad promise, but still needs truthful support.

Questions for the evidence review

  • What exactly does the wording promise, and is any specification clear and prominent on the same medium?
  • For a generic claim, is the relevant performance supported by the EU Ecolabel, an officially recognised EN ISO 14024 type I scheme, or top performance under applicable EU law?
  • Does that recognised performance actually cover the claimed benefit, rather than an unrelated characteristic?

Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition Directive (EU) 2024/825 — enacted textArticle 1(1)(b), Article 1(4) and Annex point (2): UCPD Article 2(p), 2(s) and Annex I point 4a. Source checked 2026-09-10.

A part is not the whole

The EU blacklist prohibits presenting a benefit limited to one feature or activity as a benefit of the whole product or business. Better packaging, for example, does not establish that everything about the product is environmentally better.

Questions for the evidence review

  • Does the evidence concern packaging, ingredients, one site or the entire business?
  • Is that boundary clear beside the claim?

Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition Directive (EU) 2024/825 — enacted textArticle 1(4) and Annex point (2): UCPD Annex I point 4b; recital 11. Source checked 2026-09-10.

Product climate claims based on offsets

The EU blacklist prohibits claiming that a product has a neutral, reduced or positive greenhouse-gas impact based on offsetting. That differs from evidence of reductions within the product's own lifecycle.

Questions for the evidence review

  • Is the statement about a product or an investment?
  • Which part of the claimed reduction comes from offsets?

Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition Directive (EU) 2024/825 — enacted textArticle 1(4) and Annex point (2): UCPD Annex I point 4c; recital 12. Source checked 2026-09-10.

Promises about future performance

Future environmental promises require public, verifiable commitments, measurable time-bound targets, a realistic implementation plan and independent regular verification. The misleading-practice assessment remains case-specific; ambition alone does not supply that support.

Questions for the evidence review

  • Is this environmental promise still future-facing on the communication date?
  • Are commitments clear, objective, public and verifiable in a detailed, realistic plan?
  • Where are measurable time-bound targets, resources and other elements needed to deliver the plan?
  • Who independently verifies the plan regularly, and can consumers access their findings?
  • Could the presentation change a consumer's purchasing decision?

Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition Directive (EU) 2024/825 — enacted textArticle 1(2)(b): UCPD Article 6(2)(d); recital 4. Source checked 2026-09-10.

Services comparing products

Environmental, social and circularity comparison services must explain their method, products, suppliers and updating arrangements. Missing or unclear information requires a case-specific assessment of its effect on consumers' decisions.

Questions for the evidence review

  • Are like-for-like products and boundaries compared?
  • When was the comparison last updated?

Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition Directive (EU) 2024/825 — enacted textArticle 1(3): UCPD Article 7(7); recital 6. Source checked 2026-09-10.

Environmental, social and circularity claims must not mislead

Environmental and social features, durability, repairability and recyclability are explicitly included among product characteristics assessed for misleading claims. False information or a deceptive overall presentation can matter even if an individual statement is literally true. This is a case-specific consumer-decision test, not an automatic ban on these subjects.

Questions for the evidence review

  • What would a consumer understand about the product's environmental, social or circularity performance?
  • Do evidence, boundaries and qualifications support that overall impression?
  • Could a misleading impression change a purchasing decision?

Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition Directive (EU) 2024/825 — enacted textArticle 1(2)(a): UCPD Article 6(1)(b), read with Article 6(1); recitals 2–3. Source checked 2026-09-10.

Does the advertised benefit actually belong to this offer?

Advertising an irrelevant benefit that comes from no feature of the product or business is subject to the case-specific misleading-practice test. A statement need not be a meaningful advantage merely because it sounds positive. Assess its context and effect on the consumer's decision.

Questions for the evidence review

  • Which actual product or business feature produces this benefit?
  • Is the claimed absence or advantage meaningful for this type of offer?
  • Could the presentation influence a purchasing decision the consumer would otherwise not make?

Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition Directive (EU) 2024/825 — enacted textArticle 1(2)(b): UCPD Article 6(2)(e); recital 5. Source checked 2026-09-10.

Explain an update's negative effects

The EU blacklist prohibits withholding that a software update will harm the functioning of goods with digital elements or the use of digital content or services. The check concerns an update's negative effect, not a ban on updating software.

Questions for the evidence review

  • Will this update negatively affect operation or use?
  • What testing establishes the effect, and how is that information communicated to consumers?

Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition Directive (EU) 2024/825 — enacted textArticle 1(4) and Annex point (4): UCPD Annex I point 23d; recitals 16–17. Source checked 2026-09-10.

Do not describe an optional enhancement as necessary

The EU blacklist prohibits presenting an update as necessary when it only improves functionality features. Distinguish an optional enhancement from an update needed to keep the product in conformity, including security updates.

Questions for the evidence review

  • Does the update only enhance features, or is it needed for conformity or security?
  • Do prompts and release notes make that distinction clear?

Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition Directive (EU) 2024/825 — enacted textArticle 1(4) and Annex point (4): UCPD Annex I point 23e; recital 18. Source checked 2026-09-10.

Check known features that limit a good's lifetime

The EU blacklist covers commercial communications about a good containing a feature introduced to limit durability when information about that feature and its effects is available to the trader. Do not replace this availability condition with proof that a particular employee personally knew. Ordinary low quality is not automatically such a feature.

Questions for the evidence review

  • Is there an identified feature introduced to limit durability, rather than only a general quality concern?
  • What information about the feature and its effects is available to the trader?
  • Which communications promote the affected good?

Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition Directive (EU) 2024/825 — enacted textArticle 1(4) and Annex point (4): UCPD Annex I point 23f; recital 19. Source checked 2026-09-10.

Support promised lifetime or usage

The EU blacklist prohibits falsely promising a particular lifetime or usage intensity for a good under normal use. Match any years, cycles or usage promise to the actual conditions and evidence; an isolated fault is not automatically proof of this practice.

Questions for the evidence review

  • What lifetime or usage level is claimed, and under which normal-use conditions?
  • Do tests and available performance information support that promise?

Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition Directive (EU) 2024/825 — enacted textArticle 1(4) and Annex point (4): UCPD Annex I point 23g; recital 20. Source checked 2026-09-10.

Only call a good repairable if repair is possible

The EU blacklist prohibits presenting a good as repairable when it is not. A repairability statement needs to reflect the actual ability to repair the good, not just an aspiration about circularity.

Questions for the evidence review

  • What repair does the statement promise?
  • Can that repair actually be performed, considering the good's design and restrictions?

Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition Directive (EU) 2024/825 — enacted textArticle 1(4) and Annex point (4): UCPD Annex I point 23h; recitals 21–22. Source checked 2026-09-10.

Do not prompt replacement before it is technically needed

The EU blacklist prohibits inducing consumers to refill or replace a consumable sooner than technical reasons require. Review prompts, indicators and instructions, not only advertising copy.

Questions for the evidence review

  • What technical condition justifies the refill or replacement prompt?
  • Does the prompt appear while the consumable can still perform its intended function?

Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition Directive (EU) 2024/825 — enacted textArticle 1(4) and Annex point (4): UCPD Annex I point 23i; recital 23. Source checked 2026-09-10.

Be truthful about alternative parts and consumables

The EU blacklist covers hiding functional limitations caused by using another supplier's consumables, spare parts or accessories. It also covers falsely saying those alternatives will impair the good when they will not. Both concealment and unfounded warnings need checking.

Questions for the evidence review

  • Will alternatives not supplied by the original producer reduce functionality, and is that disclosed?
  • Does evidence support any warning that alternatives will cause impairment?

Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition Directive (EU) 2024/825 — enacted textArticle 1(4) and Annex point (4): UCPD Annex I point 23j; recital 24. Source checked 2026-09-10.

Worked reading example · no assessment verdict

Nespresso: reading a future target in context

Achieve net zero GHG emissions by 2050

The Positive Cup Sustainability Report 2025, page 13. This excerpt is one of the demonstration's seven retained candidates, not a newly extracted claim.

  1. Identify what is being said

    The sentence sets a future target. It is not, by itself, a statement that the target has already been achieved. The report also states near-term Scope 1, 2, 3 and FLAG targets against a 2018 baseline.

  2. Establish the communication context

    Record who sees the wording, where it appears, its date and whether it promotes a product or business to consumers. A sentence in a sustainability report should not automatically be treated as a consumer advertisement in every country.

  3. Read the supporting evidence

    Use the future-performance section above to identify relevant commitments, plans, milestones and verification material. Read the surrounding report and linked documents: absence from this excerpt is not proof that evidence does not exist.

  4. Keep the result within the evidence

    Compare the wording and evidence with the relevant national provisions and application dates. This explanatory example does not run a national rule, find a breach or certify the claim. The current demonstration's controlled rules do not assess this future-target claim.

Open the Nespresso demonstration

Using this report

Follow the official sources to check the latest text and procedure. A proposal, a notified measure, a publication date and an application date are different evidence. The Nespresso demonstration provides retained EU-level review context; this country report does not apply national rules to your claims.

Contribute a source or request an evidence review