A decision (No. 1123/2026) of the Single-Member Court of First Instance of Athens (Interim Measures Division) was issued, by which an application for suspension of enforcement of a payment order was granted, following also the oral additional intervention we filed on behalf of our client, a société anonyme, in support of the applicant company.
In the present case, our firm intervened in favor of the applicant (beneficiary of the additional intervention), who had challenged a payment order and the accompanying order for payment served against it. The main argument of the opposition—further supported by our intervention—was the invalidity of the contested payment order due to lack of written evidence establishing the passive standing of the applicant company vis-à-vis the respondent (issuer of the payment order).
Under the law governing enforcement proceedings, the issuance of a valid payment order requires written proof not only of the claim itself but also of the parties’ standing (both active and passive), particularly in cases involving universal or singular succession. The failure to submit documents evidencing such standing and succession at the stage of issuance of the enforceable title renders the procedure voidable.
In the case at hand, the Court upheld our additional intervention and suspended the enforceability of the contested payment order, holding that: “[…] The sublessor and now respondent, however, at the time of filing its application, neither invoked nor submitted, up to the date of issuance of the payment order, the documents relating to the merger by absorption of the company under the name ‘…’ (initial sublessee) by the applicant, as well as the relevant publication formalities thereof, and the amendment of the applicant’s corporate name. In other words, it did not submit the documents proving that the applicant had become the universal successor of the initial sublessee company, entering into all its claims, rights, and obligations following the merger by absorption, and consequently into the lease relationship of that company as sublessee, as well as the change of its corporate name, and thus its passive standing as respondent in the application for issuance of the contested payment order. Furthermore, according to the Court’s legal reasoning, the court hearing the opposition against a payment order may reassess only the documents submitted at the time of filing the application for its issuance and is not permitted to examine or rule on the basis of new evidence produced for the first time during the opposition proceedings, rejecting the respondent’s argument to the contrary. Therefore, the procedural requirement of written proof, as provided for in Article 626(3) GCCP, regarding the applicant’s entry into the lease relationship and the timing thereof—i.e. its passive standing—is not satisfied… Consequently, it is likely that the first ground of opposition will be upheld as well-founded and that the opposition will ultimately succeed.”
For more information on opposition proceedings against payment orders, see here.
