A recent decision (No. 802/2026) of the Single-Member Court of First Instance of Athens rejected an opposition (pursuant to Article 632 of the Greek Code of Civil Procedure) filed by the opposing party—a supermarket chain operating in the Peloponnese—seeking to set aside Payment Order No. 5411/2022 of the same Court, amounting to €93,000. The payment order had been issued in favor of our client, a well-known electricity supply company, against the aforementioned opposing party for outstanding invoices relating to medium-voltage electricity supply.
More specifically, the Court dismissed as unfounded the first ground of opposition, which alleged lack of territorial jurisdiction of the court that issued the payment order. The Court held that the contractual relationship for the supply of medium-voltage electricity included a valid jurisdiction clause in favor of the courts of Athens, which is binding upon the contracting party and establishes the jurisdiction of the Single-Member Court of First Instance of Athens.
Furthermore, the opposing party’s arguments that the electricity supply agreement had expired and that, therefore, the jurisdiction clause could no longer apply and a payment order could not be issued due to lack of written evidence (second ground of opposition), were rejected. The Court found that, based on the conduct of the parties and the continued use of the electricity supply, an implied extension of the contractual relationship had occurred.
In particular, the Court held as follows: “[…] Moreover, from the entirety of the documentary evidence submitted by both parties and the unsworn testimony of the witness […], it is established that the first of the opponents entered into a contract with the respondent under the electricity supply agreement dated 01-12-2016, the duration of which was set until 30-12-2017, with the possibility of extension or renewal upon written agreement of the parties. However, the first of the opponents continued to use electricity under the above agreement for a period beyond 30-12-2017, which constitutes an implied extension of the contract between the parties. Furthermore, the same party claims to have paid the disputed electricity bills, which it clearly would not have done had the contract expired. In support of the above, it is noted that the invoices on the basis of which the contested payment order was issued concern the period from 01-12-2021 to 31-12-2021, i.e. a period well after the expiration of the contractual term, without any allegation that the opponents ceased to owe or pay previous electricity bills from the alleged termination of the contract until 01-12-2021.”
As regards the third ground of opposition, alleging forgery of the electricity supply invoices underlying the payment order, the Court dismissed it as inadmissible on the grounds that the legal requirements for raising a forgery claim in respect of a private document were not met. In particular, no specific evidence was submitted, nor were witnesses or other means of proof identified, as required by Article 463 GCCP. Moreover, no special power of attorney was proven for the lawyer to raise such a claim, as required by Article 98(2)(b) GCCP.
Finally, the Court rejected as vague the additional ground of opposition concerning the alleged invalidity of the contractual clause providing for a “supply cost clause,” holding that the opponents merely referred to the clause in a general and indeterminate manner, without specifying its exact content, the grounds of its alleged invalidity, or how it affected the contractual relationship and the formation of their outstanding balance. As a result, the Court was unable to examine whether the clause contravened any of the provisions of Article 2(7) of Law 2251/1994 or caused a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations within the meaning of Article 2(6) of the same law, as amended.
For more information on the legal framework and the grounds for filing an opposition against a payment order, as well as the requirements for its annulment due to lack of written evidence, see here.
