DECISION NUMBER 1051/2026

(Appeal Filing Number: ____________)

THE SINGLE-MEMBER COURT OF APPEALS OF THESSALONIKI

(Special Procedure for Property Disputes)

COMPOSED OF Judge _______________, Appellate Judge, designated by the President of the Three-Member Management Board, and Registrar ________________.

HELD A PUBLIC HEARING in its courtroom on ___________, to adjudicate the case between:

THE APPELLANT – DEFENDANT: The public limited company (société anonyme) under the name “_________________________” and the trade name “____________________”, having its registered office in _________________ and lawfully represented, appearing through its attorney-at-law _____________________ (Thessaloniki Bar Association), who filed written pleadings.

THE APPELLEE – PLAINTIFF: The public limited company (société anonyme) under the name “_________________________”, having its registered office in _________________________ and lawfully represented, appearing through its attorney-at-law Angeliki Karoni (Chalkidiki Bar Association), who filed written pleadings.

The appellee-plaintiff filed an action dated __________ and filing number ___________ against the appellant-defendant before the Single-Member Court of First Instance of Chalkidiki, upon which the definitive Decision No. ___________ of the Single-Member Court of First Instance of Chalkidiki (special procedure for property disputes) was rendered in adversarial proceedings, partially accepting the action. The defendant and now appellant appeals against this decision, having filed before this Court an appeal under filing number _____________, the hearing of which was set at the diligence of the appellant for the court date indicated at the beginning hereof and was inscribed on the docket.

DURING the hearing of the case, which was called in turn from the docket, the parties’ attorneys-at-law appeared as stated above and requested that their written pleadings be accepted.

HAVING EXAMINED THE CASE FILE

AND CONSIDERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW

The appeal at issue against definitive Decision No. _________ of the Single-Member Court of First Instance of Chalkidiki (special procedure for property disputes) has been lodged in due form and within the statutory time limit, pursuant to the provisions of Articles 495(1), 496, 498, 511, 513, 516(1), 517, and 518(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CCP). Specifically, the appeal was filed with the registry of the aforesaid court of first instance on 11-03-2026 (see the act of filing No. ______________ by the competent registrar on the appeal document); the contested decision was served upon the defendant on ___________ (see service report No. _______________ prepared by court bailiff for the district of the Thessaloniki Court of Appeals _________________, adduced and relied upon by the appellee); and furthermore, all conditions for the admissibility of its lodging are satisfied, given that the filing fee required under Article 495(3) CCP has been duly paid. Consequently, the appeal must be admitted formally and further examined as to its substance under the same procedure in which the contested decision was rendered (Article 533 CCP).

The appellant, through its written pleadings submitted from the bench before this appellate Court on __________, submits an application pursuant to Article 913(3), as replaced and in force since 01-01-2026 under Articles 101 and 168(3) of Law 5221/2025, requesting a stay of enforcement of the contested definitive Decision No. _________ of the Single-Member Court of First Instance of Chalkidiki, which was declared provisionally enforceable, until a final judgment on the lodged appeal is rendered by this Court, invoking urgency and the merits of the appeal and the grounds raised therein.

In the action dated ___________ and filing number ______________ brought before the Single-Member Court of First Instance of Chalkidiki against the defendant-appellant, the plaintiff-appellee stated that, under a lease agreement entered into via a private instrument dated 23-10-2014, it leased to the defendant the property described in detail therein—a hotel owned by the plaintiff located within the settlement of _____________, Municipality of Kassandra—for the purpose of operating a hotel business. The plaintiff further stated that said lease expired on 31-10-2019 and that the defendant owed rent payments, which it refused to settle due to default/unjustified refusal (dystropia). On the basis of this background, the plaintiff requested that the defendant be ordered to pay the total sum of 30,120 euros, plus statutory interest from the day following the fixed due date for each rent installment, or alternatively from the day following the service of the complaint; that the judgment be declared provisionally enforceable; and that the defendant be ordered to pay the plaintiff’s legal costs.

Upon the above action, contested proceedings were conducted under the special procedure for property (tenancy) disputes, resulting in the appealed definitive Decision No. _________ of the Single-Member Court of First Instance of Chalkidiki, which partially accepted the action on the merits, ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff the sum of 28,469.94 euros plus statutory interest from the day following service of the complaint, declared the decision provisionally enforceable, and assessed the plaintiff’s legal costs against the defendant. The defendant-appellant complains of this decision on the grounds set forth in its appeal brief, specifically alleging erroneous interpretation and application of the law as well as flawed appraisal of the evidence, and requests that the appealed judgment be vacated and the underlying claims be reconsidered.

I. Pursuant to the provisions of Articles 847 et seq. of the Greek Civil Code (GCC), the monetary sum provided at the execution of a lease by the lessee to the lessor to secure the proper performance of the contractual terms, commonly though improperly called a “security deposit” (engyisi)—as it bears no relation to the contract of suretyship governed by Articles 847 et seq. GCC—constitutes in reality a performance bond/guarantee deposit (engyodosia) intended to secure any claim of the lessor arising from the lease agreement. This security encompasses claims: (a) for damages resulting from alterations and deterioration of the leased premises beyond normal wear and tear, (b) for the payment of expenses incumbent upon the lessee (utility charges, water, electricity, telephone bills, etc.), (c) for the settlement of rent arrears along with the corresponding stamp duty and default interest, (d) for the payment of agreed penalties, and (e) for contractual penalties in the event of non-performance of the lessee’s obligations. The security deposit is not specifically regulated by statutory provisions and is governed by the party agreement entered into in respect thereof (Article 361 GCC), read in conjunction with the principles of good faith and commercial usage pursuant to Articles 173, 200, and 288 GCC (Supreme Court [AP] 236/2010). Upon termination of the lease, the deposit provided is returnable, provided that the lessor holds none of the aforementioned claims against the lessee or that no grounds exist for its forfeiture when operating as a contractual penalty clause. It is typically given as a guarantee deposit and constitutes, in particular, an advance payment (Article 416 GCC) by the (potential) debtor-lessee against any future debts that may remain unpaid, against which the deposit amount will be set off (AP 1193/2013, AP 394/2007, AP 496/2003, AP 836/2021). Following the termination of the lease, the lessee’s counterclaim for the return of the guarantee deposit may consequently be pleaded in set-off against claims of the lessor, including claims for rent arrears (see AP 742/2014), even if the contrary was agreed (see AP 2058/2017). For such a defense of set-off to be sufficiently specific and definite, it must state the ground on which the deposit was agreed upon and paid, as well as the legal basis giving rise to the obligation to return it, so that the due and payable nature (lixiprothesmo) thereof may be assessed on the basis of the agreed terms (AP 2058/2017, AP 236/2010, Athens Court of Appeals [EfAth] 340/2025).

II. Pursuant to Articles 269, 527(3), and 529 CCP, in conjunction with Article 442 GCC, it follows that in appellate proceedings, the defendant against whom an action was upheld at first instance is exceptionally permitted to raise for the first time by specific ground of appeal new factual allegations that were not submitted at first instance or were dismissed as inadmissible (due to vagueness), constituting defenses or counter-defenses, provided they can be admissibly raised at any stage of the proceedings—such as the defense of set-off, provided the counterclaim is proven immediately (parachrima, Article 442 GCC). This means that immediate proof must encompass all essential facts grounding the appellant’s set-off defense, leaving only their affirmative or negative subsumption under the applicable rule of law without any need for further substantive inquiry (AP 1337/2014). Specifically, such immediate proof does not merely denote early evidentiary production (proapodeixi)—with which it is not conceptually identical, though it presumes it—but the proof of the set-off defense upon its submission solely through documents or through judicial admission by the opposing party; otherwise, the opposing party’s right of counter-proof risks being impaired (Full Bench of the Supreme Court [OlAP] 10/1993, AP 16/1995, AP 1856/2005). Furthermore, the appellate court’s determination as to whether the new set-off defense grounding the appeal is proven immediately from the documents relied upon by the appellant is not subject to review on cassation, as it pertains to an assessment of facts by the substantive trial court; the inability to substantiate the counterclaim in the aforesaid manner leads to the ex officio dismissal of the set-off defense as inadmissible (AP 98/2015, AP 752/2011, AP 1990/2007, AP 1350/2018).

III. Under Article 216(1) CCP, a statement of claim must contain: (a) a clear statement of the facts substantiating the claim according to law and justifying its filing by the plaintiff against the defendant, (b) an accurate description of the subject matter of the dispute, and (c) a specific and definite prayer for relief (AP 1160/2022). Furthermore, combining the provisions of Articles 111(2), 118(4), and 216(1) CCP with Articles 574 and 595 GCC, in an action whereby a lessor claims rent from a lessee, the complaint must allege (and prove): (a) the existence of a valid property lease agreement, its place, execution date, and duration, (b) the capacity of the plaintiff as lessor and the defendant as lessee, (c) a description of the leased property and its location, (d) the amount of agreed rent and the time of payment, (e) the use made of the leased property by the lessee, (f) the lessee’s default (yperimeria) in paying the rent, and (g) a prayer for the payment of a specific sum of outstanding rent (AP 1505/2022, AP 1160/2022, AP 270/2022, AP 694/2020, AP 2035/2013; Piraeus Court of Appeals [EfPeir] 580/2025).

Under the first ground of appeal, the appellant-defendant attributes error to the contested decision, arguing that it erroneously interpreted and applied the law by admitting the action as sufficiently definite, whereas it ought to have dismissed it as inadmissible for vagueness because the complaint did not detail the annual payments made towards rent by the defendant throughout the entire lease term, the amount of deposit paid, or whether it had been set off against the defendant’s liabilities. Here, the action, with the aforementioned content and prayers for relief, is fully definite, since it sets forth all necessary facts satisfying the requirements of the applicable statutory rules to generate the invoked legal effect and accurately describes the subject matter of the dispute. Consequently, the court of first instance did not err in holding the action to be definite; thus, the first branch of the first ground of appeal must be dismissed as substantively unfounded.

From the reappraisal of the evidentiary means submitted before the court of first instance—specifically from the unsworn party testimonies of the chairman and managing director of the plaintiff and the chairman and managing director of the defendant examined at the hearing; from all documents lawfully adduced and relied upon, some taken into account for direct proof and others for drawing judicial presumptions (Articles 336(3), 339, and 395 CCP), including email correspondence that serves as proof of the sender’s identity and whose mechanical reproduction on paper falls within the concept of a private instrument bearing probative force against its issuer (Articles 443 and 444(3) CCP); and from the admissions of the parties, either expressed in their pleadings or implied from their allegations—the following facts are proven:

By virtue of a private lease agreement dated 23-10-2014, the plaintiff leased to the defendant a property in its exclusive ownership, possession, and occupation: namely, a Class B hotel situated in , within the community of the same name, Municipal Unit of Kassandra, Municipality of Kassandra, Regional Unit of Halkidiki, bearing the trade name “__”. Said hotel was equipped with movable items listed in a compiled “inventory of co-leased movable items,” which formed a lawful appendix and integral part of the lease. On the date of execution, the leased property comprised 32 guest rooms across two floors, five staff rooms, and auxiliary/common spaces. Furthermore, it possessed electrical, plumbing, sewage, and air-conditioning installations, erected on a plot of land measuring approximately 6,000 sq.m., within which perimeter recreational facilities (bar, restaurant, and swimming pool) were laid out. Under the agreement, the plaintiff leased the hotel building, its surrounding grounds, facilities, auxiliary areas, and the specified movable items, with the exception of two rooms numbered 12 and 13 at the time of execution, for which special terms were agreed and which were excluded from the lease.

The duration of the lease was agreed as five years, commencing on 01-11-2014 and expiring on 31-10-2019, at which time the automatic termination of the lease and the defendant’s obligation to surrender the leased premises were stipulated. Under clause 2 of the agreement, the annual rent was initially set at 35,000 euros. However, by that same clause, the contracting parties expressly agreed that specifically for the first five years (until 31-10-2019), the annual rent would be 27,500 euros, payable as follows: (a) 9,000 euros on May 1st of each lease year, (b) 9,000 euros on July 1st of each lease year, and (c) 9,500 euros on August 1st of each lease year. Additionally, the lessee undertook the express obligation to pay the statutory stamp duty (amounting to 3.60% at execution, or 990 euros annually), paying 330 euros with each installment. Consequently, the total annual lease consideration was agreed at 28,490 euros (27,500 + 990), as acknowledged by the defendant in its first-instance pleadings. It was agreed that the rent corresponded to the condition of the leased property as unconditionally accepted by the defendant upon signing, whereas any installations and materials fitted by the defendant would remain to the benefit of the property; for this reason, a lower rent was stipulated from the outset for the first five years.

It was further proven that although the lease was scheduled to expire on 31-10-2019, its termination occurred earlier by mutual agreement on 10-10-2019, when the defendant surrendered possession of the leased premises to the plaintiff. However, the defendant was not consistent in paying rent and refused to pay the rent for the final lease year, which fell due and payable on the fixed dates. Specifically, the defendant failed to pay the installments due on 01-08-2018, 01-05-2019, 01-07-2019, and 01-08-2019. Based on bank deposit slips produced by the defendant, the defendant paid a total of 113,980.06 euros in rent, having made payments during the disputed year of 9,500 euros on 17-04-2018, 8,000 euros on 19-06-2018, 1,500 euros on 19-06-2018, 2,500 euros on 16-07-2018, 1,000 euros on 17-07-2018, 3,000 euros on 17-07-2018, and 3,000 euros on 18-07-2018. This aligns with the plaintiff’s assertions regarding outstanding sums from 01-08-2018 through 01-08-2019.

Therefore, it was established that against the total contractual rent of 142,450 euros (28,490 x 5) for the five years, the defendant paid 113,980.06 euros, leaving an outstanding balance of 28,469.94 euros. The existence of rent arrears for the final lease year is corroborated by the managing director of the defendant company, _____________, in his unsworn party testimony before the court of first instance. Furthermore, in its first-instance pleadings, the defendant explicitly admitted an outstanding rent debt of 13,470 euros and implicitly conceded rent arrears of 15,000 euros.

Specifically, in its first-instance pleadings and by oral statement of its attorney entered into the minutes, the defendant pleaded partial satisfaction of the claimed debt on the grounds that on 21-11-2016 it had paid 15,000 euros as a security deposit. However, this claim is primarily unfounded on the merits, as a security deposit paid under a lease cannot be credited towards rent payments as an ordinary rent payment. Even if this claim of partial satisfaction were construed as a defense of set-off, it remains inadmissible for vagueness, since the defendant failed to set out the basis on which the security was agreed and paid, as well as the grounds giving rise to an obligation for its return. Accordingly, the court of first instance did not err in reaching this conclusion, and the second branch of the first ground of appeal must be dismissed as unfounded on the merits.

It was further proven that on 21-11-2016 the defendant-lessee paid 15,000 euros to the plaintiff-lessor as a security deposit for the faithful performance of its contractual obligations. In particular, pursuant to Article 10 of the lease agreement, the deposit was to be retained by the lessor until the termination of the lease and the return of the premises. In the event that damages or defects were present in the property or its furnishings upon surrender, or if debts were owed by the lessee to the Public Power Corporation (DEI), OTE, or the Municipality of Kassandra, the lessor was entitled to satisfy them from the deposit. If damages were less than the deposit, the balance would be refunded; if greater, the lessor could claim the difference. If no damages existed, the deposit was to be refunded interest-free.

Under the second ground of appeal, the appellant-defendant raises for the first time on appeal a new set-off defense pursuant to Articles 527 and 529 CCP in conjunction with Article 442 GCC, claiming a set-off of its counterclaim for the return of the 15,000 euro deposit against the plaintiff’s rent claim. The appellant asserts that the premises were returned without damage and without outstanding debts to third parties on 10-10-2019, thereby giving rise to its claim for the return of the deposit. However, this defense of set-off must be dismissed primarily as inadmissible, because: (1) all essential facts upon which it is founded are not proven immediately and clearly from the documents adduced and relied upon by the appellant, and (2) neither the appeal brief nor the appellant’s pleadings contain an allegation that the defense is admissibly raised on the basis that the underlying facts are proven by specific documents (AP 1148/2022, AP 1185/2021).

Specifically, according to Article 10 of the lease, the deposit was to cover repairs for damages or utility debts upon surrender. The lease terminated by mutual agreement on 10-10-2019, when the defendant surrendered the premises to the plaintiff’s authorized representative, ______________, who was tasked with receiving the hotel and inspecting it for damages. As shown by the handover-takeover protocol dated 10-10-2019, the representative took delivery with the remark that “everything was handed over and received in its place.” This brief notation in no way proves the absence of damages or defects to the property or its contents, nor does it establish the absence of utility debts to third parties under Article 10 of the agreement; nor does the defendant produce documents providing immediate proof of its claim for the return of the deposit. Consequently, the defendant-appellant owes the plaintiff the total amount of 28,469.94 euros in rent and stamp duty, a figure which is not contested by the appellant.

Accordingly, there being no other grounds of appeal, the appeal must be dismissed in its entirety as unfounded on the merits, and the forfeiture of the appeal filing fee to the State Treasury must be ordered (Article 495(3)(e) CCP). The application for a stay of enforcement of the provisionally enforceable first-instance judgment submitted through the appellant’s pleadings has become moot and must be dismissed, given that this Court has rendered a final judgment on the appeal dismissing it. Finally, the appellant, as the defeated party, must be ordered to pay the appellee’s legal costs for this second instance of jurisdiction (Articles 176, 183, 189(1), and 191(2) CCP), as specified in the operative part below.

FOR THESE REASONS

ADJUDICATING in contested proceedings.

FORMALLY ADMITS the appeal against definitive Decision No. ___________ of the Single-Member Court of First Instance of Chalkidiki (special procedure for property disputes), and

DISMISSES it on the merits.

ORDERS the forfeiture of the appeal deposit paid by the appellant to the Public Treasury.

DISMISSES the application for a stay of enforcement submitted via the written pleadings of the appellant-defendant filed before this Court on _________.

ORDERS the appellant to pay the appellee’s legal costs for this second instance of jurisdiction, assessed at six hundred (600) euros.

Text from the final page of the decision:

CONSIDERED, RESOLVED, AND DELIVERED at an extraordinary public hearing in its courtroom in Thessaloniki on __________, in the absence of the parties and their counsel.

THE PRESIDENT

(Signature)

THE REGISTRAR

(Signature)