Tag: #greeklaw

When a Greek court delivers a judgment, the parties involved naturally want to know what the court has decided and what happens next. For international clients who do not speak Greek, obtaining a clear and accurate English translation is often essential to understanding the outcome of the proceedings and discussing the implications with their Greek lawyers. The same applies to lawyers practising outside Greece who advise clients involved in Greek litigation. They may need to examine the judgment to understand the court’s reasoning, identify the issues decided and discuss the available options with the Greek legal team.

However, translating a Greek court judgment presents some distinctive challenges. Greek judicial decisions frequently contain lengthy and complex legal reasoning expressed in highly formal language. Procedural concepts may have no straightforward English equivalents, while apparently familiar terms can conceal important differences between legal systems. These problems become particularly significant when the judgment may be challenged on appeal or when the parties need to understand its consequences.

And with artificial intelligence now making it possible to generate an English translation or summary of a lengthy judgment in seconds, there is a further question: how much confidence can international clients and their lawyers place in the resulting text?

Understanding the structure of a Greek court judgment

Greek court judgments follow established drafting conventions which reflect the structure of Greek judicial reasoning and the procedural rules governing the proceedings. Depending on the court and type of proceedings, the judgment will ordinarily identify the court and parties, record relevant procedural information and set out the court’s reasoning before stating its decision. Two sections are especially important when translating a Greek judgment. The first is the σκεπτικό, the court’s reasoning, often introduced by the formula ΣΚΕΦΘΗΚΕ ΣΥΜΦΩΝΑ ΜΕ ΤΟ ΝΟΜΟ (having considered the matter in accordance with the law). This part of the judgment explains the legal basis on which the court has reached its conclusions. It may contain lengthy discussions of statutory provisions, references to case law and an examination of the parties’ arguments. The second is the διατακτικό, the operative part, commonly introduced by the expression ΓΙΑ ΤΟΥΣ ΛΟΓΟΥΣ ΑΥΤΟΥΣ (for these reasons). The operative part records the court’s decisions on the matters before it, including the disposition of claims and any orders made.

For a foreign reader, the relationship between these sections is fundamental to understanding what the judgment actually says.

The linguistic complexity of Greek judicial decisions

The language of Greek judgments presents difficulties that extend beyond specialised legal terminology. Greek judicial writing frequently employs long sentences containing multiple subordinate clauses. The syntax can be intricate, with qualifications and exceptions embedded within the same sentence as the principal legal proposition. In addition, some judicial formulations retain features of the older formal language associated with καθαρεύουσα, particularly in established expressions and conventional legal phraseology.

For translators working from Greek into English, these characteristics demand close attention to the grammatical and logical relationships within the text. The translator must establish precisely which proposition is being qualified, what a particular pronoun or participle refers to and whether a statement reflects the court’s conclusion or the position of one of the parties. These distinctions can become difficult to follow when a sentence extends over much of a paragraph. English legal writing generally permits a different approach to sentence construction. A lengthy Greek sentence may therefore need to be divided or restructured in English to make the reasoning intelligible. However, restructuring must preserve the original logical relationships. Careless division of a sentence can detach a qualification from the proposition to which it relates or alter the relationship between the court’s findings and its conclusions. This is where the ability to think and write like a lawyer becomes particularly valuable. Understanding the legal argument allows the translator to reconstruct it in clear English while preserving its precise meaning. The objective is an English text that a lawyer can read naturally and follow without losing any of the legal substance contained in the Greek original.

When is a Greek court judgment final?

One of the most revealing examples of the difficulties involved in translating Greek judgments concerns the terminology used to describe their procedural status. Consider the expression τελεσίδικη απόφαση. A reader encountering the English expression “final judgment” might reasonably assume that the judgment can no longer be challenged. Greek procedural law, however, recognises distinctions that make this apparently straightforward translation potentially misleading. In our paper Translating Greece’s Procedural Codes, presented at the 2023 conference of the Hellenic Society for Terminology, Daniel Webber and I examined the treatment of procedural terminology in existing Greek-English legal dictionaries. We found that all four dictionaries examined rendered τελεσίδικη απόφαση using variants of “final judgment” or “final decision”, without adequately reflecting the procedural distinctions recognised by Greek law. An οριστική απόφαση may be final in the sense that it disposes of the matter before the court, while remaining open to ordinary legal remedies. A τελεσίδικη απόφαση has reached a different procedural position, generally because the relevant ordinary legal remedies have been exhausted or the periods for exercising them have expired. Greek procedural law also recognises the category of ανέκκλητη απόφαση, concerning judgments which by their nature are not amenable to the relevant remedies, as well as αμετάκλητη απόφαση, which involves the exhaustion of available legal remedies, including the relevant avenues of recourse to higher courts.

For international clients, these distinctions can be important to understanding the procedural history of their case. They also illustrate the difficulties faced by foreign lawyers who may be familiar with the English word “final” but unfamiliar with the different categories recognised under Greek law. The translation needs to communicate the source terminology accurately without creating a misleading impression about the status of the decision. Determining whether a particular judgment can still be challenged, or what consequences follow from its procedural status, is a matter for the lawyers responsible for the proceedings.

Errors in the original Greek judgment: an overlooked translation problem

There is another difficulty which frequently arises in legal translation and which is easily overlooked by the end user: the original Greek document may itself contain errors. At JurTrans, our experience of translating Greek legal documents has made us particularly conscious of this problem. In an article published in January 2025, I reported that during 2024 we translated 946 Greek legal documents into English and found that approximately 95% contained at least one error of some kind. These figures relate to JurTrans’s own workload, which included various categories of legal documents. They should not be interpreted as a representative statistical study of the quality of Greek court judgments. Nevertheless, they illustrate how frequently source-text problems arise in our translation work. Some errors are relatively straightforward, while others require considerably more research to identify and understand. A judgment may refer to an incorrect article of legislation or contain an ambiguous statutory citation. There may also be inconsistencies in how a particular legal term is used. The translator must determine whether the apparent inconsistency has a reasonable explanation or whether there is a genuine problem in the Greek text.

In The legal translator as detective, I described an example from our translation work involving a reference to an article of the Greek Code of Civil Procedure. The provision cited in the document appeared to have no connection with the procedural steps being described. After checking the surrounding provisions and searching the Code, I eventually discovered that the reference related to an earlier version of the legislation. The source document had failed to make that historical context clear. Having identified the issue, I suggested that the instructing lawyer clarify the Greek wording. He agreed. The incident is a good illustration of the research that may be necessary to understand a legal text correctly. Given the successive amendments made to Greek legislation, consulting the current version of a statutory provision may sometimes be insufficient to establish the meaning of a historical reference.

Where a judgment contains an apparent error, the translator must preserve the integrity of the source text while drawing the issue to the attention of the instructing lawyer where appropriate. A careful translation process can therefore reveal problems which might otherwise remain unnoticed, particularly by clients who cannot consult the Greek original.

Why relying on AI-generated summaries of Greek judgments is risky

The ability to obtain an instant summary of a lengthy court judgment is understandably attractive. International clients may want an immediate answer to whether the proceedings have been successful, while foreign lawyers may need to understand the broad significance of a decision before speaking to their Greek counterparts. Generative AI systems appear to offer a convenient solution. A document can be uploaded and a short English summary requested in a matter of seconds. The difficulty lies in the reliability of that summary. Court judgments often depend on distinctions which can be lost when a lengthy text is compressed into a short narrative. A statutory exception may substantially qualify a legal proposition. The court may accept part of a party’s argument while rejecting another part. An apparently straightforward conclusion may depend on a particular interpretation of the facts or the application of a specific procedural rule. If a summary overlooks one of these qualifications, the reader may be left with an inaccurate understanding of the decision. There is also the risk that an automated system will fail to distinguish correctly between the parties’ submissions and the findings of the court. Greek judgments may reproduce the arguments advanced by litigants before explaining whether those arguments have been accepted. An AI-generated summary which attributes a rejected submission to the court would fundamentally misrepresent that part of the judgment.

These concerns are consistent with findings in the growing academic literature on automatic legal-document summarisation. In a 2024 study of large language models and generative systems for summarising court judgments, Aniket Deroy, Kripabandhu Ghosh and Saptarshi Ghosh examined systems using judgments from the supreme courts of the United Kingdom and India. Although generative systems performed relatively well according to conventional automatic evaluation metrics, closer examination identified inconsistencies in their summaries. The researchers concluded that further improvements were needed before such systems could be considered sufficiently reliable without detailed human checking. More recently, a 2026 review of legal-document summarisation research highlighted the difficulty of preserving the argumentative structure of judgments and the limitations of evaluation methods which primarily measure similarities in wording rather than legal accuracy.

Neither study, though, specifically evaluates Greek court judgments, but both identify problems relevant to the task of summarising complex judicial reasoning. The challenge is compounded when a Greek judgment is summarised directly into English. The system is then required to interpret the Greek legal text and produce a compressed account in another language, potentially concealing errors from readers who cannot independently verify the original.

For lawyers considering the implications of a judgment, a summary cannot provide the level of detail available in an accurate translation of the full text. The actual wording of the court’s reasoning may be central to understanding the decision and discussing possible further steps with Greek counsel.

What does research tell us about AI translation from Greek into English?

The limitations of automated translation in the Greek-English legal context have also been the subject of empirical research. In September 2026, Vilelmini Sosoni and I published a chapter in Springer’s International Handbook of Legal Language and Communication entitled Translating Normative Legal Texts: A Comparative Evaluation of Neural Machine Translation and Generative Artificial Intelligence Models in the Greek-English Language Pair. The study compared a neural machine translation system trained on legal-domain material with three generative AI models. We evaluated translations of two Greek property law texts, comprising planning legislation and a property sale agreement, using automatic translation-quality metrics alongside detailed human error analysis. Our findings were revealing. Accuracy errors predominated across the systems examined, and most were classified as major in severity. Although the generated English generally displayed adequate fluency, the generative AI models did not systematically outperform the specialist neural machine translation system.

These findings concern normative legal texts rather than court judgments. Their significance for the present discussion lies in the difficulties the systems encountered when translating specialised Greek legal concepts into English. The results reinforce the need to distinguish between an English text that reads fluently and one that faithfully communicates the legal meaning of its Greek source. A system may produce entirely natural English while selecting an inappropriate equivalent for a Greek procedural concept or failing to preserve an important qualification. Recognising such problems requires detailed knowledge of the source legal system and the ability to evaluate the translation against the original. Technology certainly has useful applications in legal translation, particularly in supporting research and maintaining terminological resources. However, the limitations identified in empirical studies call for considerable caution when using AI or machine translation to communicate the substance of court judgments.

At JurTrans, our approach to documents of this nature is based on establishing the meaning of the Greek text through specialist legal-linguistic analysis and producing an English translation whose accuracy can be carefully verified against the source.

Preparing Greek judgments and appeal documents for international readers

The usefulness of a Greek-English legal translation also depends on understanding the circumstances in which it will be read. For a Greek lawyer representing an international client, the primary objective may be to enable that client to understand the court’s decision and participate meaningfully in discussions about the case. Lawyers practising outside Greece may require more detailed access to the reasoning, particularly where the litigation has implications for their client’s commercial activities or wider legal affairs. In either situation, the translator benefits from understanding the purpose of the assignment. Where a judgment refers extensively to previous decisions or procedural documents, access to those materials may assist with the interpretation of terminology and the maintenance of consistency across the translations. The English text should also enable the reader to locate the corresponding material in the Greek original. This requires attention to the document’s structure, the identification of the parties and the reproduction of references to legislation and earlier decisions. Where only selected passages are translated, the extent of the translation should be clearly identified so that the reader is aware of the material covered. However, where the purpose is to understand the judgment as a whole, a complete translation is generally more useful than an abbreviated account which may omit context essential to the court’s reasoning. The appropriate scope should be agreed with the instructing lawyer, who remains responsible for determining how the translated document will be used in connection with the proceedings.

The value of specialist Greek-English legal translation expertise

At JurTrans, we have specialised in Greek-English legal and financial translation for three decades. Our work involves examining legal documents within their procedural and substantive context, with particular attention to terminology whose meaning depends on the structure of the Greek legal system. That experience is supported by formal legal education, university-level teaching experience and sustained involvement in academic research into legal translation.

Through our work on the Lex Graeca project, including the translation of major Greek codes (both substantive and procedural) into English, we have also developed extensive experience in researching Greek legal terminology and establishing consistent English renderings of concepts which are often inadequately covered by existing reference works.

We have translated many millions of words over those decades and have countless satisfied clients.  These figures reflect the depth of experience accumulated across a broad range of legal assignments.

Our approach to translating Greek court judgments is informed by detailed familiarity with the intricacies of Greek law and an appreciation of how the English translation will be understood by lawyers accustomed to different legal systems.

We approach each text with the analytical mindset of a lawyer, examining the reasoning and procedural context before settling on the most appropriate English terminology. Equally important is close attention to detail. Statutory references are checked where necessary, potential inconsistencies are investigated and questions arising from the Greek original are raised with the instructing lawyer when clarification is required. This is supported by specialist legal reference resources, access to current legal databases and a commitment to the confidentiality of clients’ documents.

For international clients and their legal advisers, the objective is to provide an English translation which communicates the substance of the Greek judgment faithfully and allows the legal issues to be discussed on an informed basis.

 

Frequently asked questions about translating Greek court judgments

Does a Greek court judgment need to be translated in full?

The appropriate scope depends on why the translation is required. Where an international client or foreign lawyer needs to understand the complete reasoning and outcome of the proceedings, a full translation is generally the most useful option. Translations of selected passages may also be appropriate, provided their scope is clearly identified and agreed with the instructing lawyer.

 

Can AI summarise a Greek judgment accurately?

AI-generated summaries may provide preliminary orientation, but their reliability should not be assumed. Research into automated judgment summarisation has identified factual inconsistencies, while studies of Greek-English legal translation have found substantial accuracy errors in automated outputs. Where a judgment’s meaning is important, the original text and an accurate professional translation provide a more dependable basis for legal discussion.

What should be provided when commissioning a Greek court judgment translation?

Providing the complete Greek document and, where relevant, earlier decisions or existing translations can help the translator understand the procedural context and maintain consistent terminology. It is also useful to explain who will read the translation and whether particular cross-references or presentation requirements need to be preserved.

Greek court judgment and appeal translation services at JurTrans

Greek court judgments and appeals can be demanding documents to translate. Their legal meaning depends on the procedural context, the structure of judicial reasoning and the specialised terminology of Greek law.

For international clients and the lawyers advising them, an accurate English translation provides the basis for understanding what the Greek court has decided and discussing its significance with the Greek legal team.

JurTrans provides specialist Greek-English translation of court judgments, appeal documents and related litigation materials, drawing on decades of practical experience and academic research into legal language.

If you require an English translation of a Greek court judgment or documents relating to an appeal, please contact JurTrans or email info@jurtrans.com.

JurTrans is a specialist legal translation company and does not provide legal advice. This article addresses legal translation and communication issues for general information. Questions concerning legal rights, procedural remedies and the consequences of court decisions should be addressed to the lawyers responsible for the proceedings.

 

 

Ορισμένες πρώτες σκέψεις σχετικά με την απόφαση 221/2026 του Αρείου Πάγου.

Η υπόθεση αφορούσε ένα μακροχρόνιο έργο αιολικής ενέργειας, στο οποίο συμμετείχαν μια ελληνική εταιρεία ανάπτυξης έργων και ένας Ισπανός επενδυτής. Παρότι το έργο επρόκειτο να κατασκευαστεί στην Ελλάδα, η μεταξύ τους σχέση διεπόταν από συμβάσεις συνταγμένες στην αγγλική γλώσσα.

Όταν η σχέση αυτή οδηγήθηκε τελικά σε ρήξη, ο Ισπανός επενδυτής επέδωσε εξώδικη δήλωση με την οποία γνωστοποιούσε ότι είχε αποφασίσει να «terminate the … Contracts and withdraw from the Project».

Η έννοια και οι έννομες συνέπειες της δήλωσης αυτής αποτέλεσαν αντικείμενο της δίκης. Τα δικαστήρια που εξέτασαν την υπόθεση ασχολήθηκαν με το συμβατικό λεκτικό και τις ελληνικές μεταφράσεις.

Για περισσότερα, διαβάστε το άρθρο. ⬇️ Greek Supreme Court judgment No. 221/2026

 

Hellenic Supreme Court Judgment No. 221/2026 [1] contains an unusually useful example of translation becoming part of the legal problem in a cross-border dispute.

The underlying case concerned a long- running wind-energy project involving a Greek developer and a Spanish investor. Their relationship was governed by English-language contracts. When that relationship eventually broke down, the Spanish investor served an extrajudicial notice stating that it had decided to “terminate the … Contracts and withdraw from the Project”. The meaning and legal effect of that declaration became part of the litigation. The courts had to consider the contractual language, the Greek translations relied upon by the parties and the legal mechanism that the notice was attempting to exercise

The way the documents had been translated had become relevant to the court’s legal analysis of the dispute.

When terminology becomes part of the argument

The central translation issue concerned the English terms “withdrawal” and “withdraw”. The parties had produced different Greek renderings of the same contractual language. In the Framework Agreement, the Greek developer translated the heading “Withdrawal” as «Υπαναχώρηση». The Spanish investor’s translation used «Απόσυρση». Within the operative provisions of the Spanish investor’s own translation, however, “withdraw from their obligations” was rendered using «υπαναχώρηση», and the same term appeared again in the provisions describing the consequences of exercising that right. The Court of Appeal expressly identified the inconsistency.

That finding has an immediate practical significance for lawyers. A translation commissioned during the early stages of a matter may still be sitting in the file several years later when the meaning of the underlying provision becomes disputed. The terminology adopted at that earlier stage can then be compared with later translations of notices, correspondence, pleadings and exhibits. If the same contractual mechanism has been rendered differently across the record, counsel may have to explain why. In Judgment No. 221/2026, the inconsistency was visible to the court and formed part of its assessment of the competing terminology.

The legal significance of the words also depended on context. The Court of Appeal considered «υπαναχώρηση», «απόσυρση» and «αποχώρηση» in light of the contractual mechanism created by the relevant provisions and the legal consequences attached to it. It concluded that, in this particular contractual setting, “withdrawal” and “withdraw” were to be understood from the viewpoint of Greek law as «υπαναχώρηση» and «υπαναχωρώ». That reasoning is useful precisely because it is contextual. An English verb that appears straightforward at first sight may acquire a much narrower legal significance once it is placed inside a clause dealing with the exercise of a particular contractual right.

For counsel, this creates a clear risk-management issue. A translation can contain language that is perfectly intelligible and still create difficulty because the chosen terminology does not sit coherently with the legal mechanism expressed elsewhere in the contract. The problem becomes more serious where several translations have been commissioned at different times and the terminology has drifted. Once the dispute reaches court, those choices become part of the documentary history of the case.

Terminology drift

Cross-border disputes rarely arrive fully formed. They develop over time[2]. An agreement may be translated when advice is first sought. Correspondence may be translated months later. An extrajudicial notice may be prepared during an escalation of the dispute. Pleadings, exhibits and witness material may follow. Appeals and cassation proceedings can generate further translation requirements. The same underlying contractual concepts may therefore reappear in documents produced years apart.

That makes translation consistency a case-management issue. The important question is whether recurring concepts have been treated coherently across the file. Counsel should know how a key term was translated in the agreement, whether the same terminology was used in subsequent correspondence, and whether a later translation introduces a different Greek expression for the same contractual mechanism. If a change is deliberate, it should be capable of explanation. If it has happened accidentally because a later document was translated without access to the earlier material, the file has acquired an avoidable vulnerability[3].

Judgment No. 221/2026 gives this point real substance. The court did not examine one translated sentence in isolation. It moved across the Framework Agreement, the Project Agreement, the parties’ respective translations and the December 2015 notice. Earlier terminology informed the analysis of the later declaration. The documents formed a chain. For lawyers managing a bilingual dispute, the translation process needs to reflect that same chain.

This has implications for the way instructions are given. A translator dealing with an operative notice may need the underlying agreement and its existing translation. A translator working on pleadings may need to see the terminology already adopted in the evidence. Where a concept is genuinely ambiguous, counsel may need to decide how that ambiguity should be handled before the translation is finalised. Those steps reduce the chance that terminology will develop independently across documents that will ultimately be read together.

The legal effect of a few words

The December 2015 notice brought these issues into focus. Its English text stated that the Spanish investor had decided to “terminate the … Contracts and withdraw from the Project”. The Court of Appeal considered that the wording raised a question about the juridical character of the declaration, because the two expressions potentially pointed towards different legal mechanisms.

The court then examined the consequences contemplated by the notice. Among other things, the Spanish investor proposed the transfer of its shares in the project company for a nominal price. That consequence corresponded with the contractual mechanism provided for in Article 5.2 of the Framework Agreement in connection with withdrawal. The court therefore characterised the declaration as an exercise of contractual υπαναχώρηση.

For a lawyer reviewing a translation, this is an important point of method. Operative language has to be read through the legal function of the document. A notice may be exercising a right, triggering a contractual consequence or attempting to bring a legal relationship to an end. A translation choice affecting the characterisation of that act deserves a different level of scrutiny from a purely descriptive passage in the factual record.

That distinction is easy to miss where the disputed English word appears ordinary and is not a term of art. “Withdraw” is common language. In this case, it was connected with a contractual right carrying defined conditions and consequences. A translator who treats the word as an isolated lexical problem may produce a fluent version while missing the legal architecture around it. Counsel then inherits that decision when the document is relied upon in proceedings.

The judgment provides another example in the word “feasibility”. Article 3.5 of the Project Agreement referred to the project’s “technical and financial feasibility”. One translation rendered the term as «βιωσιμότητα». The Court of Appeal considered «σκοπιμότητα» the appropriate rendering in the context of the provision.

The point is useful because “feasibility” does not immediately look like a difficult legal term. Within Article 3.5, however, it formed part of the condition governing whether the investor could exercise its right to withdraw from the project. Its importance came from the work it was doing in the clause.

Commercial contracts contain many expressions of this kind. “Material”, “reasonable”, “completion”, “default”, “acceptance”, “notice”, “cause” and similar words can acquire considerable significance through their contractual function. Their translation requires attention to the surrounding rights, obligations and consequences. The presence of familiar vocabulary should not encourage a lighter review where the clause itself performs important legal work.

For counsel, the practical implication is straightforward. Review effort should follow legal significance. A term embedded in a provision governing termination, withdrawal, liability, payment, default or another important contractual mechanism deserves close attention even if the English itself appears routine.

The risk often lies in the relationship between the word and the clause, not in the word viewed on its own.

AI does not remove the need for file-level verification

The same issue arises when machine translation or generative AI is incorporated into the workflow. Glossaries and terminology instructions can improve consistency across large volumes of material. They are useful tools, particularly where a case contains recurring technical or contractual language. Their effectiveness still needs to be verified against the documents that matter.

Generative systems produce language probabilistically. A preferred term may be supplied in a glossary and still appear differently in another passage. The system may preserve the chosen word while misunderstanding the legal relationship expressed by the clause. Large-scale use therefore creates a practical review question for counsel: have the legally significant occurrences actually been checked against the agreement and against the terminology already used elsewhere in the file?

That question becomes particularly important where translation work is divided across several stages of a dispute. An AI-assisted translation of a new notice may be linguistically polished and internally coherent while departing from terminology established years earlier in the contract. Without a case-level review, the divergence may remain invisible until the documents are placed side by side in proceedings.

Translation risk

Judgment No. 221/2026 does not support the claim that the Spanish investor lost because of a bad translation. After the December notice had been characterised as an exercise of υπαναχώρηση, the courts still had to determine whether the contractual conditions for exercising that right had been met. Article 3.5 allowed withdrawal where the project’s technical or financial feasibility had proved insufficient under the relevant conditions. The Court of Appeal found that the notice did not specify whether the alleged inadequacy was technical, economic or both, and did not identify the supporting data. The attempted exercise of the right therefore failed on substantive grounds. The Supreme Court rejected the cassation challenge to that conclusion.

The translation issue nevertheless mattered because it formed part of the route by which the legal act was characterised. That is a realistic model of translation risk in contentious work. The danger is often cumulative. An inconsistent term, an unexamined synonym, a later document translated without reference to the underlying agreement, or an ordinary commercial word carrying an important contractual threshold can create an additional point requiring submissions and judicial analysis.

Cross-border litigation already contains enough genuine uncertainty. Translation should be managed so that it does not introduce further avoidable ambiguity into the record. Judgment No. 221/2026 shows how easily terminology can become part of the forensic material once a dispute turns on the legal effect of the documents themselves. For Greek lawyers working with English-language contracts, the case offers a practical reason to treat translated terminology as part of the case strategy from the outset, with the same attention to consistency, context and legal consequence that is applied to the original documents.

#GreekLaw #LegalTranslation #ContractualDisputes

[1] https://shorturl.at/f0m4s. The judgment is in Greek.

[2] Scott, J., O’Shea, J. How Legal Documents Translated Outside Institutions Affect Lives, Businesses and the Economy. Int J Semiot Law 34, 1331–1373 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-020-09815-5

[3] Scott, J. & O’Shea, J., ‘Legal Systems Exposed: Translation and Vulnerabilities’ in Anne Wagner and Aleksandra Matulewska (eds), Research Handbook on Jurilinguistics (Edward Elgar Publishing 2023) 300 https://doi.org/10.4337/9781802207248.00029

When legal documents cross borders, the challenge is not simply one of language. Different jurisdictions organise legal concepts differently, use different procedural terminology and often have no exact equivalent for terms that appear straightforward on the page. For clients working between Greece, Cyprus and English-speaking jurisdictions, those differences can have real consequences.

This is where specialist legal translation adds value.

JurTrans works exclusively in the Greek-English legal and financial field, helping law firms, businesses, institutions and private clients use translated documents with confidence. The aim is not only to produce text that is linguistically accurate, but to ensure that it makes sense in its legal context and is appropriate for the purpose for which it will be used.

That requires judgement. A term that appears to have an obvious English equivalent may carry a different procedural or institutional meaning in Greek or Cypriot law. A literal rendering may be understandable but misleading. A phrase that is acceptable in one legal system may sound unnatural, imprecise or even suggest a different legal effect in another.

By combining linguistic expertise with detailed familiarity with Greek, Cypriot, UK and European legal terminology and practice, JurTrans helps clients avoid those problems. The result is clearer drafting, more reliable terminology and fewer ambiguities in documents intended for litigation, corporate transactions, contracts, regulatory matters and other situations where precision matters.

Experience also plays an important role. After almost three decades and tens of millions of translated words across legal and financial subject areas, recurring terminology, procedural distinctions and jurisdiction-specific conventions are familiar territory. That accumulated knowledge allows potential issues to be identified early and handled consistently.

The rise of generative AI has made instant translation easier than ever. It has also made it easier to produce text that sounds convincing while being subtly or plainly wrong. In legal work, fluency is not the same as accuracy. A polished sentence can still contain a false equivalence, omit an important distinction or introduce terminology that is inappropriate for the relevant jurisdiction.

For this reason, the human element remains central to the JurTrans approach. Technology is used where it genuinely improves consistency, efficiency and terminology management, but every text is subject to professional judgement and careful review. Clients also benefit from confidentiality, accountability and the ability to ask questions or resolve uncertainties with a specialist who understands both the source document and its legal setting.

Ultimately, good legal translation should reduce friction rather than create it. It should allow the reader to focus on the substance of the document without being distracted by awkward language, uncertain terminology or hidden ambiguity. That is the practical benefit JurTrans aims to provide: accurate, dependable legal communication across jurisdictions, with the expertise and scrutiny that high-stakes documents require.

 

No one reads a legal text as closely as a legal translator in their effort to understand what it says and means, and to render that appropriately in another language.

While modern tech certainly has its uses, this is not one of them.

Today’s musings on legal translation were inspired by the sort of research I regularly need to do to be able to translate properly and accurately, so that the client gets a text that makes sense and is useable; an impeccable legal translation they can trust and rely on.

One particular sentence in the document I was translating referred to a specific article of the Greek code of civil procedure. It was cited as support for a set of procedural steps that were taken in proceedings (X did Y pursuant to Article Z). But something didn’t feel right. When I actually consulted Article Z of that code, I noticed that it was talking about something completely different.

My initial thought was it was just another of the classic mistakes one finds in Greek legal documents. That it was a case of the drafting lawyer having mistyped the article number.  That is the typical sort of thing I flag to my lawyer clients.

So I searched the nearby articles of the code to see if they were relevant. Nope.

I did a keyword search. Nothing relevant in the code.

Then it occurred to me what was going on. The reference to that article was not to the current version of the code but one of the older versions.

In recent years there has been a flurry of overhauls and major amendments to Greece’s core codes, including the code of civil procedure. Sometimes the pace of change in the codes can be dizzying.

Consulting a past version of the code I was able to identify what the sentence was actually referring to. Of course, having worked on the translations of all the major codes in recent years as part of the Lex Graeca project made the task of identifying the past version easier.

To ensure the end user of the translation fully understood what was being said in that section of the text, I proposed that the lawyer redraft the Greek text to make it clear that it was the older version of the code being referred to, not the current one. He agreed.

Happy drafting lawyer. Happy end user. Potential confusion avoided.

At Jurtrans, we do the head-scratching so you don’t have to. We offer legal translations that flag potential problems in the source text and offer work-arounds and solutions to ensure effective legal communication. We offer services that MT and AI can’t. We care about getting your legal communication right.

If you’re a Greek lawyer and want a diligently-researched, carefully-crafted English translation of a  Greek legal text, get in touch with us at info@jurtrans.com.

properly-researched Greek-English legal translations

Many lawyers seem to think they can just press a button and technology will miraculously produce a useable translation they can present to clients to aid understanding of legal provisions or help those clients grasp what their rights and obligations are.

Much has been written about how writing in simpler language makes it easier for the machine to “translate”.

Except, of course, legal language is hardly ever simple and straightforward. Words and concepts are connected to other provisions and concepts in a complicated web of meaning. And that meaning needs to come across in the translated version of the legal text. Unsurprisingly, machines fail a lot in relation to this.

But what if there are mistakes in the legal text?

Machines can’t identify mistakes. If the person reading the translated version doesn’t know the language the original document was written in, and isn’t expert in the relevant area of law, they may not be able to spot those issues. The lawyer who pressed the “translate” button may not be able to spot them either.

And talking of lawyers and law professionals not spotting things, I wanted to share some thoughts on errors in legal documents (be they contracts, articles of associations, pleadings, judgments, legislation, etc.), which are the sort of things we at Jurtrans typically translate.

Errors in Greek legal documents are very common.

Much more common than you’d imagine.

In 2024 we translated 946 Greek legal documents into English.

An astonishing 95% of them contained one or more errors of various types.

That’s a lot of errors.

And a lot of comments from us pointing out the errors and oversights in the Greek texts.

Getting an error-free legal text for translation from Greek to English really is the exception rather than the rule in our experience.

And many of those errors can have significant consequences if they aren’t spotted in time. More of which at another time …

To repeat the oft-heard phrase “no one reads a legal document as carefully as a legal translator”.  Machines certainly don’t have that capability because they simply match patterns, they don’t understand meaning.

So what sort of errors do we typically see?

  • Incomplete citations. For example, Article 95 is mentioned. But Article 95 of what? Of the contract the phrase appears in? Of the governing law? Of some other piece of legislation?  With our deep knowledge of Greek law we can often tell which piece of legislation is meant and can add a comment about that.
  • Incorrect citations. For example, the wrong governing legislation is cited, or the wrong article and paragraph number are cited, or the wrong judgment is cited.
  • Related to this, we frequently see legislation being cited that is no longer in force at the time the document was drafted. This happens a lot in company law texts when the old regime under Law 2190/1920 is cited despite the legislation being overhauled by Law 4548/2018.
  • Similarly, we often encounter numbers being reversed. Greek legislation has a numerical citation so (made up example) Law 1959/2008 could be cited mistakenly as Law 1995/2008.
  • Inconsistent paragraph / section numbering. Greek has its own unique numbering system based on Greek letters and characters. We often see lists omitting ‘στ’ (equivalent of ‘f) and going straight from ‘ε΄ το ‘ζ. Τhat can throw off the numbering scheme. It’s often the case that ‘στ’ is omitted at one location in the document but included in other locations. Likewise, we often see paragraph numbering jumping from say paragraph 3 to paragraph 5 with no paragraph 4 in between.
  • Another frequent problem is the drafting lawyer/judge mixes up who the parties are and what roles they hold. Plaintiff/claimant is confused with defendant at some point in the text, for example.
  • We often encounter sections of garbled text because of a copy-paste issue meaning part of a sentence is missing. The grammar / syntax is often messed up in this section of the text making it impossible to deduce what the correct intended meaning is.
  • Often there is a lack of logical flow in the argumentation or there are contradictions between what was said at the start of the text and what is said further down.
  • “Things left dangling” are quite frequent. For example a sentence may set up the logic of a disjunctive list (a or b) we only the information relating to ‘a’ is provided.
  • Subject-verb disagreement. Single subjects matched with plural verbs, or vice versa.
  • Single and plural nouns confused. Although the text refers to one buyer elsewhere it refers to several buyers.
  • Mistakes of fact, like saying such and such a place is in England when it is in Scotland.
  • Conflicting information in different parts of the text (for example a debt of a specific amount is mentioned at the start, but a higher / lower / other amount is mentioned further down)
  • Incorrect references to foreign legal documents.
  • On a related point, spelling mistakes in the English names of foreign legal acts or in foreign abbreviations, for example the General Rules for International Factoring being abbreviated as GRIP in the Greek text instead of GRIF.
  • Forgetting to consistently use “capitalised terms” that have been assigned a special meaning in the document.
  • Introducing capitalised terms that are nowhere defined in the document. For example in a lease defining the “Leased Property” in detail but then going on to call it the “Building”.
  • Related to the foregoing point, elegant variation in terms used, so an agreement is called just that (an “agreement”) in one paragraph, but is called a “contract” in another.
  • Use of incorrect terminology for the area of law or use of outdated terms that come from an older version of the legislation.
  • Ambiguously worded phrases where two or more possible intended meanings co-exist
  • Numbers written out in full do not match the numbers presented arithmetically.

Given our long years of professional experience in translating Greek legal texts into English, we can easily spot these errors and save egg on our clients’ faces. Machine translation and generative AI systems certainly can’t do that.

 

Following on from yesterday’s musings on the utility of technological tools for legal translation purposes, let’s hear today what a lecturer in family law has to say about the topic:

“Regarding … improving family experiences, numerous AI-based tools are designed to support clients or lawyers, but their accuracy strongly depends on the case details.

No doubt automatised legal translators [sic] have rapidly pro­gressed in the last few years, yet their accuracy compared to the sworn translator can still be questioned. …

Yet, they tend to fall short in complicated matters, particularly highly contextual sentenc­es.

Additionally, as a scholar deeply immersed in Japanese family law, I can assess that the existing translators [sic] can mislead about the true sense of the content of the legal norms or documents and, thus, can be treated only as a support tool. …

Family law requires an exact understanding of the analysed text, including legal terms and human emotions that can be expressed in various ways, such as non-verbal messages. …

Given the noticeable number of international couples communicating with each other or their children in different languages, detailed knowledge about the family and personal situation cannot depend on auto­matic translation, which cannot grasp the significance of words and non-verbal mes­sages at this stage.

Conversely, clients seeking legal information through automated translations could find incomplete or false information.

Thus, despite the rapid pace of development of AI-based legal translations, family lawyers should consider em­ploying reasoning based on them as high-risk assumptions, mainly due to the ina­bility to grasp subtleties and cultural nuances.

This raises an essential question – is AI-based translation useful at all if a specialised human translator will probably al­ways be more accurate than machines and one step ahead, despite the slower work?”

Piegzik, M.A., “The Adoption of Artificial Intelligence in Family Law –
Brand New or Well-known Idea?” Folia Iuridica Universitatis Wratislaviensis
2024 vol. 13 (2), 26–51

I’d argue these considerations do not apply just to family law but to all branches of law.

The language of the law is hard. Translating the language of the law is hard.

It still confounds technology. There are no simple push-of-a-button solutions.

If you need help seeing through the hype and want someone to tell you the truth about what language technologies can and cannot do when it comes to translating legal documents from Greek to English and vice versa, book a 30-minute call here: https://lnkd.in/edMThP3c

I’m all for technology. I use it all day, every day. But every technology has its limits (and its limitations).

Don’t we all wish that legal language was simple and straightforward and that you could just click a button and you’d have a clear understanding of what a foreign legal text actually says?

Then you’d know what your rights or obligations are.

You’d be able to converse intelligently with your legal counsel or your lawyer could explain things to you in terms you understand.

You’d be able to plan your next steps.

You’d know where you stand.

Nonetheless, 9 years after NMT went mainstream, and 2+ years after genAI was launched, legal language continues to confound technology.

By way of illustration, let’s take a sentence that would be straightforward for any Greek lawyer or experienced professional legal translator working in the Greek-English combination:

The Greek source text

The sentence may be straightforward. But behind it is someone who needs to show they have not been accused of something serious. The words may look innocent on the screen but the real-life implications are huge.

It’s vital to get the translation right.

You don’t want just any old translation.

You want an impeccable translation you can rely on.

How the tech performed

Google Translate gives us this piece of incomprehensible garbage. Remember Google Translate has been working on fine-tuning its neural machine translation engines for 9 years now.

The “English” translation according to Google Translate

– This is neither fluent nor accurate.

– Is employee even correct here? Is the text not actually referring to a “civil servant”?

– What does “occupied the service” even mean?

– The employee occupied the service “due to disciplinary or criminal offences”. What does that even mean?

– Holiday? αργία can mean public/official holiday yes, but in a completely different context. This is a bit like opening a dictionary, seeing 10 different meanings of a word, and picking the first. It might be correct in some context. Not this one.

In law, context is king.

DeepL gives us this rendering:

The “English” translation according to DeepL

– Again this is neither fluent nor accurate.

– Again we have to ask whether employee is the right choice of term here.

– Why is the “suspended from duty” idea now in the first part of the sentence when the Greek is referring to the fact that the department/unit the person works for has not had to handle any disciplinary/criminal complaints against that person?

– “Placed on leave”. Does that fully convey the concept of αργία? Or is it only covering part of the concept? αργία/argia means you are (i) stripped of the right to perform your duties + (ii) you only receive half your salary. “Placed on leave” really doesn’t cut it.

– Placed on “suspension from duty”. Grammatically does that stand in English? It’s beyond awkward and definitely doesn’t flow. Let’s say αναστολή here does mean that the person is suspended from duty. Is that with pay or without pay? How is this concept related to the previous one (αργία)? How does the “translation” differentiate between the two so that the reader actually understands what is going on?

Chatgpt 4.0gives us this:

The “English” translation according to Chatgpt

– This is again not fluent English. Nor is it accurate.

– As with the other versions we have to ask whether “employee” is the correct term.

– The first half of the sentence sort of conveys the meaning but omits quite an important bit of information (that the place where this person works has not had to handle complaints against them). Let’s say you get some general idea. In legal settings, do you really only want to walk away with “some general idea”?

– The second half of the sentence doesn’t fluently link to the second half.

– If αναστολή is the concept of “suspended” why does Chatgpt render αργία as “placed on suspension”? Does it draw an adequate distinction between the terms? From the viewpoint of Greek law, the two terms are quite distinct (related yes, but distinct). Let’s say there is an element of “suspension” in αργία, does the English rendering this tool offers accurately and fully convey what the Greek concept is saying? Or does it not omit a huge part of the meaning? What of the point we highlighted above concerning reduction in pay? How does that get conveyed by the wording chosen here?

Reality check

If you’re an ordinary individual using these tools to get some idea of what the Greek text is saying, can you hand-on-heart say you really understand the Greek after reading these “English” renderings?

If you’re a Greek lawyer who has to explain what is going on to a foreign client, can you hand-on-heart say these various “English” renderings adequately convey what the Greek text says?

Would you feel comfortable relying on them in a professional context?

With tools like these you may gain speed.

“Translations” may be available at the click of a button.

But are the “translations” actually useable?

If you need a translation to understand a legal text or you’re a lawyer who needs one in their legal work, use a specialist legal translator.

Reach out to us at Jurtrans Translations for impeccably accurate Greek-English legal translations.

Today my timeline is filled with stories of the Greek Minister of Justice wanting to use AI-powered machine translation tools for interpreting in court settings and translating legal documents in various judicial proceedings. Settings where attention to detail should certainly matter.

The law is all about wielding words accurately (or deliberately wielding them in deliberately ambiguous ways). But let’s focus on the scenario where accuracy is what you’re after because you want / need to understand your rights and obligations in a legal setting; you want/need to make an important legal decision, etc.

In a post I did yesterday I stressed that the constancy of legal words is important; such constancy is important for a host of important reasons lawyers will immediately recognise, just some of which are legal certainty and the rule of law.

So I thought I’d run a little test connected to something I was working on.

I asked ChatGPT to translate a legal provision from Greek to English:

The text to be translated

This is the output:

ChatGPT’s output

Sounds quite plausible and convincing.

But let’s not forget that MT/AI systems used in translation are known for creating the “illusion of fluidity”[1].

They’re also known for a whole series of other problems (omitting bits of the text, changing negative obligations into positive ones, inconsistent use of terms, made-up words, etc.) but they are not relevant to us today.

What’s relevant today is this “illusion of fluidity”. On first reading the translation seems to be ok. It seems right.

On closer reading, especially if you compare it with the original, you start to spot “issues”.

Are you even able to compare it to the original to be able to identify any issues?

In this particular case, the article comes from a convention that already exists in English so we can easily determine what is right and what’s not. The relevant article reads as follows:

The “actual” legal provision

Admittedly, the original and “translation” are very similar.

There are differences you can easily spot:

  1. “Entitled to benefit” vs. “Entitled to avail himself of”:
  2. “Willful misconduct on its part” vs. “His wilful misconduct”:
  3. “According to the law of the court having jurisdiction over the matter” vs. “In accordance with the law of the court or tribunal seized of the case”:
  4. “Considered equivalent to willful misconduct” vs. “Considered as equivalent to wilful misconduct”:
  5. “Omission” vs. “Default”

Some are probably not that important (you get the general idea whether worded in one way or the other). Are you only after a general idea though? Or as a lawyer/client do you want to precisely understand what the text is saying?

Others change the legal meaning utterly.

It does get the specialist term “wilful misconduct” right. Other online tools get it wrong (deliberate poor management / deliberate mismanagement / wilful mismanagement).

Although I didn’t ask for it, ChatGPT added “its” “view” about the output generated:

ChatGPT’s view of its output

Was it asked to provide simpler, more straightforward phrasing? We see a clear translational strategy here: opting for plainer language to make the text easier to read. Probably not a bad thing. Not the appropriate strategy though in this context.

It makes the bold assertion that both the original English text and its “output” are legally correct.

So I asked the obvious question:

ChatGPT generated this response:

If lawyers use precise wording “to avoid ambiguity” why does this system generate a “rough” translation?

So while I was focused on the details, and getting the translation “right”, our online tool was not.

ChatGPT provided an unofficial rendering of the provision. While the meaning may be “roughly the same”, it does not carry the same legal weight or and certainly doesn’t contain the precise wording as the official version.

Why does this matter?

Words matter in law … even translated words.

Established wording needs to be maintained.

Established wording is what lawyers will recognise and are used to working with.

Any deviation from established wording creates headaches.

Sticking to established wording saves users of the translation time, and avoids a lot of head-scratching and bewilderment of the type “so legally speaking what does that actually mean”?

Legal language is a “controlled” language. You cannot just use any old words you want.

Randomly generated “rough” translations introduce inefficiencies into lawyerly processes.

Randomly generated “rough” translations create false impressions of legal rules / legal obligations, especially if you aren’t an expert in that area of law; say, for example, you’re the client rather the lawyer.

Basically with tools like this you get “a translation”.

But …

Is it “the translation” you need?

Is it a translation you can use?

Is it a translation you can rely on in your lawyerly dealings?

Is it a translation you can trust?

It is a translation you can base decisions on?

Work with expert legal translators if you need your legal words to count.

[1] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/375697263_La_TA_neuronale_et_ses_defis_compte_rendu_d’une_experience_pedagogique_en_traduction_economique

Contact


If you would like further information about the specialised services we provide, or need a quote for a translation please feel free to contact us.

Name
Email
Message

Thank you for your message! We will get back to you as soon as possible.
There has been an eror in the form. Please validate the required fields.
© Copyright 2014 JurTrans