February 2022

Decision of the Single Court of Appeal of Nafplio on the Recognition of the Inaccuracy of a Third Tenant's Declaration of Seizure in his Hand

The decision No. 246/2021 of the Nafplio Court of Appeal, which accepted the claim of false declaration of a third party tenant in seizure in the hands of a third party, was issued. In particular, the background of the case as reflected in the above appellate decision is as follows: 'By the 145/2012 payment order of the Judge of the Single Judge of the Nafplio Court of First Instance, issued upon the request of the appellant and the opponent, the debtor company of the latter, ...., was ordered to pay the opponent the amount of 149,000 euros plus interest and costs. The defendant and opponent served the above-mentioned payment order twice on the above-mentioned general partnership and its debtor, without the latter ever lodging an objection, with the result that the above-mentioned payment order became res judicata pursuant to Article 633(1)(b) of the Brussels Convention. Subsequently, by notarial act 60/2011, a company under the name of ... was set up, which established its business activity on the premises of the above-mentioned general partnership. That is, ..... used the premises of ..... as its establishment and headquarters. Subsequently, following an action brought by the respondent and opponent of the application No. ... before the Single Court of First Instance of Nafplio, the final first instance decision No. 531/2017 was issued, which in the meantime had become final since it was confirmed by the 422/2018 decision of this Court, which obliged the then defendant ... to pay to the respondent and opponent the sum of EUR 50,000 plus interest and costs as successor to the above-mentioned company .... By virtue of the above final judgment of the Court of First Instance ... the opposing party lawfully imposed ... a conservatory attachment ... in favour of the appellant ... as a third party, on the existing and future monetary claims of the above-mentioned company ... for the monthly rents amounting to EUR 800 per month... [...] ...it is indeed between the defendant the seizure of the company ... and the plaintiff and defendant/appellant, there were active debt claims for the rents amounting to EUR 800 per month, which the defendant/appellant was entitled to seize. [...] ". In simple terms, the opposing party and debtor had leased business premises to a third company against which the creditor company had turned to collect its claim. The latter, refusing to pay the amount of the rent, claimed that the debtor and lessor company had no claim against it because it had been set off against its corresponding liabilities. However, that allegation was never put forward in a definitive manner, either at first instance or at second instance. As a result, it was rejected and it was held that the rents from the date of service of the attachment and since then are due to the lending company, which proceeded to seize the rents in the hands of the lessee in order to satisfy its claims against the lessor company'.