Summary
Child pornography (Article 348Α of the Greek Criminal Code) is punished severely, unlike adult pornography, which is in principle lawful. This page sets out, in a calm and strictly legal manner, the legal definition of the material, the forms the offence can take, and the proportionality questions that are deployed in the defence. Every accused person is presumed innocent until an irrevocable conviction.
Contents
- Is pornography punishable in general?
- Can a work of art be considered pornographic?
- What is child-pornography material?
- Is mere possession punishable too?
- Is “virtual” pornography punishable too?
- Is merely viewing it punishable too?
- When does the material become a felony?
- What is “revenge porn”, and how is it punished?
- What are “child pornographic performances”, and how are they punished?
Frequently asked questions — child pornography
Is pornography punishable in general?
No. The production, possession, and distribution of adult pornographic material between adults is neither prohibited nor punished in Greece or in most EU countries. The wider question of whether pornography should be banned is the subject of worldwide debate, from legal moralism to the liberal view in favour of freedom of expression.
Can a work of art be considered pornographic?
Art is protected by the Constitution (Art. 16 §1) and is not prosecuted. There are two views: on the first, whatever is art cannot be pornography (the exclusivity theory); on the second, the two can coexist, so a case-by-case balancing is carried out (the balancing theory).
What is child-pornography material?
The law gives a specific definition: the representation, or the real or virtual depiction on an electronic or other medium, of a minor’s genitals or body, or of a minor’s sexual acts, in a way that manifestly causes sexual arousal. The Greek Criminal Code draws no distinction between “hard” and “soft” pornography.
Is mere possession punishable too?
Yes — and, indeed, in the same way as production or distribution. The overwhelming majority of cases that reach the courts concern the possession of digital files. Part of legal scholarship considers that punishing mere possession so severely raises a question of proportionality (a constitutional principle) — an argument that is often crucial to the defence.
Is “virtual” pornography punishable too?
Yes, in the same way as “real” material. Virtual pornography is an artificial creation (for example, cartoons, montage, AI images) with no real children involved. Since 2024 it also covers the case of a person who “appears” to be a minor, even if they are in fact an adult. Here too, scholarship is troubled by the question of proportionality.
Is merely viewing it punishable too?
Simply browsing the internet is not treated as a criminal offence, but knowingly obtaining “access” to such material is punishable by imprisonment of up to 3 years (Art. 348Α §6 GCC). The provision has not yet been applied in practice. On one reading, what is punished is not a single glance, but securing sustained access with a view to procuring and possessing the material.
When does the material become a felony?
The law lays down aggravated (qualified) forms — for example, commission on a professional basis, with exploitation, or with violence. More common in practice is the possession of material involving children under 15 (or even under 12). For some years the Supreme Court (Areios Pagos) required “something more” (processing or distribution), a position it has recently abandoned. Here too, scholarship raises the issue of proportionality.
What is “revenge porn”, and how is it punished?
A new offence (Art. 346 GCC): the publication of “private moments” without the consent of the person shown. The name is misleading — no purpose of revenge is required, and even the mere threat of publication is punishable. It is punished more severely (incarceration of up to 8 years) if it involves a minor, a former partner, or an employee, or if it is done for profit.
What are “child pornographic performances”, and how are they punished?
Both the organiser or participant and the spectator are punished, where a minor (under 18) takes part. The “performance” may be given live or transmitted, and involves sexual images of the minor (Art. 348Γ GCC). Since 2024 the “spectator” is punished regardless of whether they paid an admission fee.
From practice: the acquittal by the Athens Mixed Jury Court, 383/2022
The charge: the felony form of Article 348Α§4β GCC — procuring and possessing roughly 3,000 files through a P2P program (eMule). The penalty faced: incarceration. My client, a young man who had been mass-downloading adult pornography, suddenly found himself facing one of the gravest offences in our criminal law.
The key was technical: 99.99% of the files had been deleted with Shift+Delete — an irreversible deletion. The files sat in the disk’s unallocated clusters: invisible and inaccessible to an ordinary user — only a forensic expert, using specialist recovery tools, can “see” them. Deletion proves an intention to discard, not to possess. No folder structure, not a single message to a minor. And the 8 “suspect” search terms? Copied and pasted from file names, in German and Esperanto — languages the accused demonstrably did not know.
At the hearing: I filed a technical opinion on the forensic report of the Forensic Sciences Directorate and raised self-standing pleas: downgrading the charge to a misdemeanour (348Α §6 GCC) and terminating the prosecution on limitation grounds. The public prosecutor herself, after the taking of evidence, proposed that the accused be acquitted.
The verdict: the Second Athens Mixed Jury Court declared the accused not guilty, lifted the seizure, and ordered the hard drives returned to their owner.
“The court retains doubts as to whether the accused committed the offence attributed to him — and, on the fundamental principle of criminal law in dubio pro reo, he must be declared not guilty.”
📄 Read the full judgment, 383/2022 (fully anonymised, PDF, 23 pages)
No judgment guarantees the outcome of another case — every case file is decided on its own facts. It does show, however, where these cases are won or lost: on the digital evidence. And on who can truly read it.