Ioanna Michalopoulou, Managing Partner
Dimitrios – Aineias Spiliotis, Senior Associate
Law 5322/2026 was published in Government Gazette A΄ 117/24.07.2026. Section C, that is Articles 82 to 90, bears the title “Strengthening of the protection of public health from non-permitted cannabis products” and materially alters the landscape for an entire category of products.
Article 84 added paragraph 3B to Article 1 of Law 4139/2013. There is now a prohibition on the production, the trading, the purchase, the sale and generally the distribution of any product which cumulatively is intended for vaping, inhalation, combustion, smoking or use via the respiratory route and consists of plants or a mixture of plants or a mixture of herbs, in which substances with cannabimimetic or psychotropic action are detected, incorporated by means of a process of addition or processing. Only the medicinal cannabis products of Articles 2A to 2Z are excluded.
The prohibition applies irrespective of the use for which the products are intended, so that indications of the collector’s item type do not render the sale lawful, while the list of methods of incorporation is broad, since spraying, nebulisation, mixing and admixture are enumerated indicatively. Those products expressly cease to constitute cannabis products and Article 20 of Law 4139/2013 applies to offenders, that is the criminal framework governing narcotics.
Until now the distinction between natural and synthetic or semi-synthetic cannabinoids operated as an argument for the lawful sale of those products. Τhe scope targeted by the interpretative circular no. Α.Π. οικ. 3424/26.06.2026, which targeted the practice of spraying plant material with synthetic or semi-synthetic cannabinoids, is materially broadened by Article 84, since the reference is now to substances (metabolites) of natural origin (cannabinoids) or of non-natural origin.
The identification of substances of natural origin with cannabinoids is the most underestimated yet essential point of the provision, since the qualifier of cannabimimetic or psychotropic action continues to concern both categories of substances, so that the argument that a specific phytocannabinoid does not carry such action is not considered sound.
In parallel, Article 85 replaced in its entirety point (d) of paragraph 1A of Article 2A of Law 4139/2013, that is the definition of cannabis products itself. The previous definition covered products which either derived from the cultivation of Cannabis Sativa L varieties of up to 0.3% or contained cannabidiol. The new definition recognises only two categories, cosmetics and food supplements which meet the conditions of paragraph 3 of Article 1 and products which contain exclusively cannabidiol. Consequently, every broad-spectrum extract, every product with predominant CBG or with the presence of CBN, CBC or CBT, falls outside the definition even if it contains no detectable THC. The new definition is further accompanied by an express list of exclusions, which comprises foods other than food supplements, infant foods, tobacco or vaping products and the products of paragraphs 3A and 3B of Article 1.
The practical consequence is that the licence of Law 5302/2026 is not available for those products, since those products now fall outside the scope of licensing.
Articles 86 to 89 adjust Articles 47, 48, 50 and 51 of Law 5302/2026 accordingly, since the reference to products containing cannabidiol was deleted from Article 47 and a bare cross-reference to the new definition remained. A new licensing document was added to Article 48, namely a solemn declaration by the legal representative that the products do not fall within the prohibition of paragraph 3B. This point shifts part of the risk onto the person of the representative, with separate exposure for a false solemn declaration. The on-site inspections of Article 50 were expressly extended to the detection of products falling under paragraph 3B and in Article 51 the cumulation of the administrative sanctions with the criminal framework of Article 20 of Law 4139/2013 became express.
It is critical, however, to note that the concept of cannabimimetic action remains without a legislative definition. No analytical method for its determination is provided, no detection limit is set and the enabling provision of Article 90 does not cover its specification and consequently an offence carrying criminal consequences is founded on a pharmacological concept which the law itself does not define. That gap does not concern cannabinoids alone, since if the concept of cannabimimetic action is interpreted on the basis of action on cannabinoid receptors, the scope of paragraph 3B extends far beyond what the market today understands as cannabis products.
For anyone active in the sector, a mapping of the product portfolio is required by reference to the intended use and not by reference to the THC content, while it is a given that an analysis of the full composition of the products is required, not only for THC but for the totality of cannabinoids and terpenes, in the finished product and in the aerosol where heating occurs.
