February 2026

Decision of the Supreme Court on the Suspension of Enforcement of a Final and Irrevocable Judgment

The recently published Supreme Court decision No. 4/2026 (Section A3 — sitting as a Council) ordered the suspension of the enforcement of a final judicial decision that obliged our client — a corporate entity — to pay a sum of money to the opposing party.

Under Article 565 of the Greek Code of Civil Procedure (KPolD), neither the deadline for filing a cassation appeal nor the filing of such an appeal suspends the enforcement of the contested decision. It should be noted that final adverse decisions issued by Courts of Second Instance constitute an enforceable title (Article 904 KPolD), and the prevailing party may pursue satisfaction of its claim through compulsory enforcement procedures.

However, where the enforcement of the contested decision is likely to cause harm that cannot be easily remedied, a party may file an application to suspend in whole or in part the enforcement of the contested decision, subject to the provision of an appropriate guarantee or even without any guarantee. Additionally, the enforcement may be made conditional upon the provision of security by the successful party.

In the present case, the Court of Second Instance committed serious procedural errors. For that reason, we immediately filed a cassation appeal seeking to overturn the final decision and, at the same time, an application for suspension of enforcement of the contested decision, invoking the imminent risk of irreparable harm that could not otherwise be prevented, and demonstrating the probable success of the cassation appeal. In practice, enforcement of the final decision would have resulted in the complete and definitive cessation of the Applicant’s business operation.

More specifically, the Court of Second Instance incorrectly failed to take into account the evidentiary documents submitted for the first time before it, citing Article 529(2) KPolD (“The appellate court may reject evidence submitted for the first time before it as inadmissible where, in its judgment, the party failed to submit it at first instance either by deliberate litigation strategy or by gross negligence”), concluding that they were not submitted at first instance due to gross negligence. However, these specific documents directly proved our argument of payment of the claim by way of set‑off, which was validly raised for the first time before the Court of Appeal pursuant to Article 527(6) KPolD (“A new factual claim is inadmissible on appeal unless it is evidenced in writing or by judicial admission of the opposing party”).

Although the appellate court correctly held that a new factual claim may be validly raised in the Court of Appeal if it is proven in writing, it nonetheless refused to consider the supporting evidence by improperly applying the exception in Article 529(2) KPolD. The serious flaw in the decision lies in the fact that, where a new factual claim — such as the set‑off defense — is evidenced in writing and raised under Article 527(6) KPolD, the rule in Article 529(2) KPolD is inapplicable. According to established doctrine and case law, the documents supporting a new factual claim must be considered mandatorily and cannot be excluded simply because the appellate court believes they were available earlier or not submitted due to gross negligence. The failure to consider these documents led to the rejection of our set‑off defense.

Following the filing of the cassation appeal, the relevant division of the Supreme Court initially issued an interim order suspending enforcement of the final judgment until a decision was rendered on the suspension application. Subsequently, after hearing our arguments, the above‑mentioned decision was issued, suspending enforcement of the contested final decision — without requiring the provision of security by the Applicant — until the hearing of the cassation appeal.

In particular, the Court correctly assessed the imminent risk based on the evidentiary material we submitted and concluded that: “From the above evidentiary material, it was reasonably established that the enforcement of the contested decision would give rise to a risk of harm to the Applicant, the remedy of which would not be easy. Therefore, the application must be accepted…”