Decision No. 191/2026 of the Single-Member Court of First Instance of Tripoli (special procedure for property disputes) was recently published. The court annulled the contested report of compulsory seizure imposed on the real property of our clients, accepting that in the present case there was no written enforcement order endorsed on the enforceable copy of the title, as required by Article 927(a) of the Greek Code of Civil Procedure.
According to the judgment, the requirement that the enforcement order be placed on the enforceable copy itself (as provided under the version of the provision in force prior to 1 January 2026) constitutes a constitutive and formal legal requirement. Its absence renders the enforcement order legally non-existent, with the immediate consequence that all subsequent enforcement measures are deemed invalid. Furthermore, the prejudice suffered by the judgment debtor is considered self-evident.
In the crucial part of its reasoning, the court held: “[…] Pursuant to Article 927(a) of the Greek Code of Civil Procedure, as in force prior to its amendment effective from 1 January 2026, compulsory enforcement is carried out at the initiative of the person entitled to pursue it, who gives the relevant enforcement order on the enforceable copy to a designated court bailiff […]. This formality is constitutive and, indeed, solemn in nature, with the result that an enforcement order issued without compliance with this written form is deemed legally non-existent. Consequently, enforcement acts undertaken in the absence of such an order are invalid, while the prejudice suffered in view of the impending auction is self-evident […].”
Applying this legal rule to the facts of the case, the court concluded: “[…] From the true copy of the first enforceable copy of the enforceable title […] as deposited with the notary public acting as the auction officer […], it appears that no enforcement order was endorsed thereon, nor was any such order attached thereto as an annexed and integral document. […] However, from this document [namely, the separate sheet containing the enforcement order submitted by the respondent], it cannot be safely inferred that the written enforcement order dated 15 April 2025 […] had in fact been issued in writing to the bailiff and, moreover, prior to the seizure, since at the time of certification the enforceable copy was already in the possession of the auction officer (the notary public). Nevertheless, the respondent failed to produce a copy bearing the relevant certification by that officer (the notary public). Therefore, the first ground of the present opposition must be upheld and Report of Compulsory Seizure of Real Property No. 1,720/2025 must be annulled […].”
The decision is of particular practical significance for enforcement proceedings initiated before 1 January 2026, as it confirms that the written enforcement order endorsed on the enforceable copy constituted an essential validity requirement under Article 927 GCCP. The absence of such endorsement cannot be remedied merely by the subsequent production of a separate document, unless it is established that the document formed an integral part of the enforceable copy and existed prior to the seizure. Consequently, the lack of a valid enforcement order results in the annulment of the ensuing enforcement measures, including the seizure itself.
