June 2020

Decision of the Athens Court of First Instance on the Referral to Arbitration of the Technical Chamber of Greece (TEE-TCG)

By decision No. 7183/2020 of the Athens Single Judge Court of First Instance, which was rendered in an action brought by landowners against our client contractor company, it was held that the first two plaintiffs, who had contracted with our client in the construction contract, were bound by the arbitration clause included in the contract. Accordingly, the Court referred the dispute to the Arbitration Chamber of the Technical Chamber of Greece (TEE-TCG). In particular, the Court held that the first part of that clause, which agreed, separately from the arbitration clause, that the dispute should be heard by way of injunctive relief, was invalid, but that this invalidity did not affect the second part of the arbitration clause in the Technical Chamber of Greece (TEE-TCG).  

The Court came to this conclusion by accepting that the case at issue involved issues relating to technical matters concerning the completion of the project (construction and completion of the apartment building at issue), which fell within the scope of the clause, and rejecting the plaintiffs' claims that our client had improperly invoked the arbitration clause concluded between them and that the clause did not apply to disputes between them, which would arise after, but only until the completion of the project. 

Moreover, as to the third plaintiff, the purchaser of one of the horizontal properties of the contested apartment building, who had not contracted with our client in the construction contract, but subsequently purchased one of the horizontal properties under construction from the building owners, it was held that, under a contractual term, he fictitiously took possession of the horizontal property, since he did not come to take possession of it within the agreed time limit, despite being duly invited to do so by our client, thus making him a defaulting creditor. In addition, it was held that there was no fault and therefore no default on the part of our client, because the late delivery was due to the fact that our client had been entrusted, after the contract had been concluded, with the process of settling the semi-outdoor areas of the properties in the block of flats, in accordance with Law No. 4014/2011 and 4178/2013.