May 2024

Decision of the Single-Member Court of First Instance of Patras on the Annulment of Seizure Due to Non-Delivery of the Payment Order within the Two-Month Deadline of Article 630A of the Code of Civil Procedure

The decision no. 319/2024 of the Single-Member Court of First Instance of Patras was published, annulling the payment order and the resulting compulsory seizure report. The decision accepted an additional reason for the objection concerning the automatic termination of the payment order's validity due to its non-delivery to the defendant within the two-month period specified by the Code of Civil Procedure. This reason was first raised in the context of contesting the payment order and the seizure report. Specifically, the reason concerned the annulment of the payment order and the seizure because they were initiated based on an enforceable title that had automatically lost its validity due to non-delivery within two months of its issuance to the defendant.

Specifically, according to the provision of Article 630A of the Code of Civil Procedure, the payment order must be served to the person against whom it is directed within two months from its issuance; otherwise, the payment order ceases to be valid and produces no legal effect. It is noteworthy that any subsequent late service does not affect this consequence, which occurs automatically. In this case, although the claimant issued a payment order to satisfy her claim, she did not serve it to the defendant – the objector – within the two-month period specified by law, resulting in the inability to support the compulsory enforcement process against him due to the termination of the enforceable title's validity.

The decision thus ruled that: "[...] due to the non-delivery within two months from its issuance, the payment order no. ... ceased to be valid automatically concerning the objector, there is no enforceable title, the enforcement process against his movable or immovable property cannot be supported, and consequently, the enforcement initiated by the contested actions against the objector by the claimant is null and void [...] Therefore, the first additional reason must be accepted as substantively valid and the payment order (for execution) dated ... and the seizure report no. ... of immovable property must be annulled [...]".