With Law 5221/2025, a coherent set of new and amended provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure is introduced, sharing a common objective: strengthening procedural discipline, streamlining the pre-trial stage, and preventing dilatory tactics, so that the parties are led more quickly to a decision on the merits. Acceleration is pursued not only through shorter deadlines, but primarily through early screening of admissibility, i.e., of formal defects in the statement of claim, and through the now more limited possibility of adjournments.

First, Article 215 of the Code of Civil Procedure decisively reinforces the swift initiation of proceedings. On the one hand, a stricter system for setting the hearing date is introduced, on the other, a short and uniform deadline is established for service of the claim after its filing, with a significant sanction in case of omission, so as to deter dilatory practices. This approach serves the aim of speeding up the process, as it immediately activates the adversarial procedure and promptly triggers the subsequent deadlines. At the same time, strengthening the court’s conciliatory intervention under Article 209 provides an organized pre-trial mechanism for resolving, or at least narrowing, the dispute. As a result, either litigation is avoided entirely, or its subject matter becomes clearer and more limited, and therefore easier to adjudicate.

Particular emphasis is placed on the clarity and reliability of service of process, which until recently was a frequent cause of delay. Article 134A addresses specific problems relating to service abroad, so that the progress of the case is not paralyzed by lengthy and difficult international transmissions. Article 135(4) clarifies when service on a person of unknown residence is deemed completed, so that the commencement and progression of deadlines can be determined with certainty. These rules help reduce cancellations, disputes, and procedural dead ends that previously arose from uncertainty regarding the validity of service and the time at which its effects occur.

A further core element of acceleration is strengthening the binding nature of deadlines. Article 144(4) establishes a general principle that deadlines are, as a rule, binding and peremptory for everyone, unless otherwise provided. This regulatory choice consolidates procedural discipline and limits the practice of “softening” the time limits of the process. In the same spirit is the curing of formal defects without nullifying the proceedings. Articles 67 and 105 strengthen mechanisms for dealing with issues of representation and authority by setting a deadline for correction, while Article 227 reshapes the possibility of remedying formal omissions even at an advanced stage. These provisions contribute significantly to faster proceedings, because they turn formal obstacles into matters of targeted correction without producing procedural invalidity.

The most substantive reform is found in Article 237, which reshapes ordinary proceedings toward concentrating the evidentiary material at an early stage. The logic is that the parties must set out their arguments in a timely manner and submit their evidence so that the hearing is no longer the starting point for understanding the case, but the culmination of the court’s study of the file. In addition, pre-trial screening tools are introduced for matters of admissibility, aiming at the early removal from the court docket of cases that cannot be examined and decided on the merits. In connection with the above, Article 269 strengthens the principle of concentration of allegations and means of attack and defense in ordinary proceedings, limiting late submissions and allowing them only exceptionally and under strict conditions, particularly for facts arising later. In this way, the “piecemeal” development of the dispute, where supplements, objections, and evidence are introduced at multiple stages, is reduced, and the time required to deliver justice is shortened. Furthermore, Article 238(1) recalibrates the deadlines for interventions, third-party notices, and related procedural tools in a manner compatible with the new timetable, so that third-party participation does not operate as an unpredictable factor prolonging time, but as a controlled mechanism within clear deadlines.

A key acceleration measure is, in any event, limiting adjournments. Article 241 compresses the possibility of adjournment, making it an exceptional tool that presupposes serious cause. Abuse is therefore curtailed. In addition, at the decision stage, Article 307 strengthens the framework for timely completion of judicial determination, with regulatory directions aimed at reducing the time from the hearing to publication of the judgment.

Of course, acceleration is not confined to first-instance proceedings. At the level of legal remedies, Article 495 promotes their faster progress through earlier scheduling of the hearing, while Articles 518(2) and 520 reduce time margins and organize more fully the filing and development of the appeal, seeking to limit prolonged uncertainty at second instance as well.

Finally, it is worth noting that technological provisions support acceleration. Article 119(5) provides for an electronic case file, a measure that reduces procedural delays and facilitates the parties’ access to the case materials. Similarly, Article 397 incorporates more flexible solutions for the examination of evidence using technological means, reducing practical obstacles that often lead to slowdowns.

Overall, Law 5221/2025 transforms procedure from “flexible and fragmented” into scheduled and concentrated: strict initiation, clear service, binding deadlines, curing formal defects instead of annulments, mature preparation and early screening, fewer adjournments and better organization of the hearing list/third-party participation, faster completion through judgment, including at second instance, and support through digital tools. In this way, acceleration is not piecemeal, but structural.