September 2025

Decision of the Single-Member Court of First Instance of Neapoli, Lasithi on the Annulment of an Order for Execution and a Forced Seizure Report

The Decision No. 382/2025 of the Court of First Instance of Neapoli, Lasithi (Single-Member Division for Property Disputes – Section of Objections) was recently published. This decision annulled both the contested “order for payment”, which had been served upon our client company, and the forced seizure order based on it, concerning the client’s immovable property. The reasoning for the objection that we presented was accepted: in this case, the opposing party sought to accelerate forced execution on the basis of a simple copy of the certified copy of the executory “apografo” (executory record/copy), which had been granted to her by the Notary, pursuant to Article 918 paragraph 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

According to the judgment, the fact that in the text of the order for payment — specifically at its beginning, at the part where the instruction for service by the judicial bailiff is mentioned — there is a statement about the certification of accuracy of the copy, does not cure the absence of certification by a lawyer of the authenticity of the copy of the apografo, because this is a reference to another document. According to the findings of the decision, the placement of the stamp and the signature should follow a text from which it appears that the Lawyer has certified the accuracy of the document served.

As the said decision also held: “[…] Only at the beginning of the order for payment is inscribed: ‘Exact photocopied copy from the certified copy in my possession, from the first (a’) executory apografo of No. … Order for Payment of the Court of First Instance of Heraklion, attached to Notarial Act No. … of the Notary of Piraeus …, which is issued under the provisions of Article 918 paragraph 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which I lawfully certify’, with the signature coming on the final page of the order for payment. However, all the documents served have separate autonomy, since they have different content and in each of them there should be a separate certification. In particular, it is not possible to supply the lack of certification of the copy of the first executory apografo of Order for Payment No. …, because they are autonomous documents which, to satisfy the legal requirements, must bear independent certification. It is also noted that a mere reference at the beginning of the order for payment that it is an ‘Exact photocopied copy from the certified copy in my possession, from the first (a’) executory apografo of No. … Order for Payment of the Court of First Instance of Heraklion …’ is not sufficient to remedy the defect of non‑certification of the copy of the apografo with number …, since the order for payment constitutes a separate document in relation to the apografo. On the basis of the foregoing, the contested order for payment is invalid, regardless of damage; likewise the forced seizure order based on it concerning immovable property […]”.

In a related article of ours (see here), we have laid out instances of procedural defects that case law in our courts has held, which ultimately led to annulment of the seizure. One of these defects is often found in the order for execution. In this instance, the defect identified and held, as above, was the complete absence of certification of the copy of the apografo by virtue of which the disputed execution was accelerated. According to the characteristic findings of Decision No. 382/2025 of the Court of First Instance of Neapoli, Lasithi: “[…] It is not a defect internal to the apografo, that is, an error in its content, but an external formal defect, which concerns its validity (whether it is an exact copy and whether it has the effect of the original or is only a photocopied copy without such effect).”