February 2025

Decision of the Single-Member Court of First Instance of Kalamata on the Annulment of Public Sector Enforcement Proceedings Against a S.A. Company

The Single-Member Court of First Instance of Kalamata has issued decision No. 16/2025, annulling the enforcement actions initiated by the Public Sector against a Société Anonyme (S.A.) company for an amount of approximately €200,000.

Specifically, the company had previously seized funds from the Public Sector through a third-party attachment against a credit institution, thereby collecting the aforementioned amount. However, this attachment was annulled at the appellate level following a challenge by the Public Sector, while a decision from the Supreme Court (Areios Pagos) is still pending regarding the company’s appeal for cassation.

In the meantime, the company had entered into a restructuring agreement with its creditors, which was ratified by the competent court. Among the terms of the agreement was the write-off of its public sector debts related to unjust enrichment claims, which pertained to periods before the issuance of the ratification decision.

Following the annulment of the attachment, the Public Sector, through the competent authority, issued an assessment decision and registered the amount in the state’s accounting records. It subsequently served the company with an individual notice, initiating compulsory collection measures. The court ruled that the Public Sector had not followed the proper legal procedure for the collection of the amount, as it should have first obtained a lawful title through judicial proceedings. Specifically, the decision states:

"More specifically, the subsequent annulment of the enforcement action only gives rise to a contractual claim by the third party affected by the challenge (Ministry of Shipping and Island Policy) against the challenging party, to reclaim the amount of €181,464.10 withdrawn from the account, based on unjust enrichment provisions, as analyzed in legal reasoning III (see Supreme Court Decision No. 352/2020, NOMOS database). Consequently, due to the absence of a lawful title, the subsequent administrative enforcement actions, including the accounting registration, financial listing, and individual notice served to the appellant, are deemed unlawful as they necessarily follow from the lack of a lawful title, according to the relevant legal analysis in section II. In light of all the above, the challenge should be accepted on its merits, without the need to examine additional grounds, and the contested enforcement actions should be annulled, as specified in the ruling’s operative part."