BEFORE THE SINGLE-MEMBER COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF POLYGYROS
(Interim Measures Procedure)
APPLICATION
Of ......................................, resident of Gavriadia, Ierissos, Chalkidiki.
AGAINST
The société anonyme under the name “Public Power Corporation (D.E.I.) S.A.”, a legal
entity governed by private law, seated in Athens, Chalkokondyli Street no. 30, as lawfully
represented.
Thessaloniki 16.01.2012
I. HISTORY OF THE CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION:
I am the owner of a holiday residence in Gavriadia, Ierissos, Nautilos settlement,
with a built surface area of 67 sq.m., which is used by my family for recreational purposes
both during the summer and winter months.
On 17/10/2011, D.E.I. issued the electricity consumption bill (supply number
2 25414610-01 1) for the above residence in my name, for a total amount of 286.00
euros (see relevant document 1) for the cost of electricity and other charges. Also included
in the above D.E.I. bill was the amount of 241.20 euros (as the amount of the first instalment)
corresponding to the so-called “Extraordinary Special Duty on Electrified Built Surfaces
(E.E.T.I.D.E.)” established by Article 53 of Law 4021/2011 (Government Gazette 218/A΄/03-10-2011).
Against this bill I submitted to D.E.I. an Application for Review on 16.12.2011, which received
Protocol Number 12866 (see relevant document 2), while I also submitted the same application
before the Municipality of Aristotle on 23.11.2012, which received protocol number 38797
(see relevant document 3). However, to date I have received no reply whatsoever to these
applications, while on 20.12.2011 the respondent issued no.
II. Because the amount of the “Extraordinary Special Duty on Electrified Built Surfaces
(E.E.T.I.D.E.)” through the aforementioned electricity consumption bill (supply number
2 25414610-01 1) of my above residence, amounting to 241.20 euros, is obviously
incorrect, excessive, having no relation whatsoever to reality and in any event strongly disputed
by me, since it has been issued following self-evident errors, which arise from public documents,
as a result of which the electricity consumption bill of our above residence, for a total amount
of 286.00 euros, is unbearable for me and I am unable to pay it.
In particular, the charge of the above Duty (241.20 euros) in the D.E.I. bill is incredibly
inflated and obviously incorrect for the following reasons:
1. A charge has been made on double the square meters because our property belongs to buildings
outside the town plan.
For the more correct application of the provision of Article 53 of Law 4021/2011, Decision no.
1211/13-10-11, Government Gazette 2298 B/13-10-11, of the Deputy Minister of Finance was issued:
“Determination of the manner and procedure for: a) the collection of the extraordinary special duty
on electrified built surfaces through electricity consumption bills, b) the assessment and collection
of the duty according to the provisions of the Code for the Collection of Public Revenues from
the owner or usufructuary of the property in case of non-payment through electricity consumption
bills, c) the assessment and collection of the duty in case the exemption conditions are not met and
d) the application of the provisions of paragraphs 6, 7, of the first subparagraph of paragraph 11
as well as the conditions for refund of the special duty by the competent Tax Office, for the year 2011”.
Article 1 thereof provides that:
The amount of E.E.T.I.D.E. results from multiplying the square meters of the electrified built
surfaces by the surcharge coefficient corresponding to the zone price of the property and by the
surcharge coefficient corresponding to the age of the property, as these are defined in paragraph 2
of Article 53 of Law 4021/2011.
For the calculation of E.E.T.I.D.E., the data concerning the electrified built surface, namely the area
of the built surface, the amount of the zone price and the age of the property, are taken into account
as recorded according to the data of the municipalities.
In cases where the square meters taken into account for the calculation of this duty are more than
double the largest of the square meters indicated in the municipal charges and the municipal tax,
then E.E.T.I.D.E. is calculated on the basis of the square meters indicated in the municipal charges.
The previous subparagraph does not apply when the square meters indicated in the municipal
charges have the value zero (0).
The competent services of the second of you, Municipality of Aristotle, in order to determine the
surface area of properties subject to the real estate property duty (TAP), which is collected together
with electricity consumption bills, apply the provisions of Article 24 of Law 2130/93 (Government
Gazette 62/Issue A) where:
1. From 1 January 1993, a duty is imposed in favor of municipalities and communities, which is
calculated on the value of real estate located within their administrative district according to the
following distinctions: a) On all types of real estate located within an approved town plan or within
the boundaries of settlements existing before the year 1923 or within the boundaries of settlements
with a population of fewer than two thousand (2,000) inhabitants, b) On all types of buildings located
outside the approved town plan or outside the boundaries of settlements existing before the year 1923
or outside the boundaries of settlements with a population of fewer than two thousand (2,000)
inhabitants. In case b, for the calculation of the value, the municipal or community council takes into
account the value of the buildings and the value of an area double that occupied by the buildings,
provided that such exists.
In view of the above, it is imperative to set out the important issue that has arisen regarding the
imposition of E.E.T.I.D.E. on owners of properties located outside approved town plans or outside
settlement boundaries. This is because the calculation of this special duty on the basis of the
fictitious square meters of properties in this category (the Municipality is obliged, under the above
legislation, to impose the corresponding TAP on an area double the actual area occupied by the
buildings) results in the imposition of an amount double that which would have been imposed if the
actual square meters of the electrified built surfaces had been taken into account for the calculation.
As a result, liable persons are burdened with excessive amounts, the payment of which in many cases
becomes impossible. It is worth noting that the situation is worsened by the fact that in case of non-payment
of the extraordinary special duty on electrified built surfaces within 40 days from the issuance of the bill,
D.E.I. and the alternative electricity suppliers issue an order for disconnection of the consumer’s electricity
to the Network Operator, who disconnects the connection and does not reconnect the electricity until the
payment of E.E.T.I.D.E., as expressly stated in the relevant decision of the Deputy Minister of Finance.
Furthermore, an important issue arises regarding the meaning of the term “built surface”. Article 1
of the relevant decision of the Deputy Minister of Finance provides that the special duty provided for
by the provision of par. 1 of Article 53 of Law 4021/2011 is imposed on electrified built surfaces of
properties for residential or commercial use which, on 17 September 2011, for the year 2011, are
subject to the real estate property duty provided for in paragraph 1 of Article 24 of Law 2130/1993
(A’ 62), namely all types of real estate located within an approved town plan or within settlement
boundaries etc. and all types of buildings located outside the approved town plan or outside settlement
boundaries. The reference to this article concerns the two categories of properties subject to the special
duty and not the manner of its calculation for properties outside the town plan. The explanation set out
in Law 2130/93, par. 1 case b, that for the calculation of value the municipal or community council
takes into account the value of the buildings and the value of an area double that occupied by the buildings,
distinctly concerns the manner of calculation and imposition of TAP, which is paid to the municipality
with every electricity consumption bill. Besides, Law 4021/11 clearly refers to the term “built”.
My holiday residence is located outside the town plan, in the area of Gavriadia, Ierissos, and as you know,
as owner I pay for my legal property (33.50 sq.m. upper floor and 33.50 sq.m. actual basement) municipal
charges - municipal tax, through D.E.I. bills, for the total built surface, namely 67 sq.m. Correspondingly,
I pay Real Estate Property Duty (TAP) for a building surface double the built surface, namely 134 sq.m.,
according to par. 1b of Article 24 of Law 2130/93 (Government Gazette 62 A’).
Because in this specific case the actual meters of our property are 67.00 sq.m., the correct calculation
should have been 67 sq.m. X 1.20 (age coefficient) X 3.00 euros = 241.20 euros and not the incorrect
482.40 euros.
That is, E.E.T.I.D.E. was charged for 134 M2 (irregularly), instead of the correct (67 M2) (surface,
therefore double).
III. LEGAL PART
According to the provision of Article 57 of the Civil Code, anyone who is unlawfully offended in their
personality has the right to demand that the offence be lifted and not repeated in the future. Personality
constitutes the complex of goods that make up the substance of a person, with which these are inseparably
connected. That is, it includes every element that constitutes the physical, mental, spiritual and social
individuality of the human being.
Protected goods that make up personality include indicatively: a) life, health, physical integrity, b) mental
health, emotional world, c) external honor, d) freedom, e) inviolability of the home, f) privacy of the private
or public life of the person, g) the image of the person. In particular, external honor is reflected in the perception
and appreciation that others have of the individual. For the provision of protection to the right of personality
according to the aforementioned provision, certain conditions must be met, such as unlawful offence by a third
party, while fault of the offender is not required, except for the claim for compensation, which is provided
under the provisions on torts. An offence against personality exists in every case of diminishing interference
in its sphere by a third party, that is, in any of the goods composing it, by which the condition existing at the
time of the offence is disturbed in one or more manifestations of the physical, mental, spiritual and social
individuality of the injured person. The offence is unlawful when the interference in another’s personality is
not permitted by law or is made in the exercise of a right which, however, from the standpoint of the legal
order, is of lesser importance, or is exercised abusively (Supreme Court 1508/1988, EEN 1989.741, Athens
Court of Appeal 2006/1993, ArchN 44.334, Athens Court of Appeal 105034/1986, EllDni 28.1315,
V. Vathrakokoilis, Interpretation-case law of the Civil Code, volume one, 2001 edition, p. 269, 276). Furthermore,
according to the provision of Article 200 of the Civil Code, contracts are interpreted as required by good faith,
taking into account business usages. That is, in case of disagreement between the parties as to the true meaning
of the content of the contract, the rules of good faith and business usages are taken into account. Good faith
means the fairness and honesty required in transactions according to the judgment of a decent and prudent person
(on objective criteria, according to prevailing social perceptions of proper conduct).
Business usages, which do not constitute an independent rule of law of the same importance as good faith, but are
taken into account in determining the specific content of good faith, are the usual modes of action in transactions
and are taken into account only when they do not conflict with social morality, that is, when they are in accordance
with it or morally neutral.
Of course, the specific conditions and possibilities of the parties are decisive and, in particular, the meaning that
can be attributed to both parties, based on their ability to understand and their mutual responsibility regarding
the use and understanding of language, that is, the meaning that the declarant is entitled to expect will be given
by the recipient, or otherwise that which the latter ought and could have understood, shall apply. Mainly, the true
will of the declarant must be taken into account, that is, the meaning attributed by them to the declaration, the
temporal, local and other conditions of the declaration and the nature of the legal act (Supreme Court 1199/1986,
EEN 1987.428, V. Vathrakokoilis, Interpretation – case law of the Civil Code, volume one, 2001 edition, p. 842-843,
Ap. Georgiadis – Mich. Stathopoulos, Article-by-article interpretation of the Civil Code, volume one, 1978 edition,
p. 326-328). Finally, according to the provision of Article 281 of the Civil Code, the exercise of a right is prohibited
if it manifestly exceeds the limits imposed by good faith or good morals or the social or economic purpose of the right.
This provision has a strong public order character and moral and social meaning and aims at balancing the conflict
of interests and restoring the social balance that has been disturbed. The concept of good faith in this provision is
identical to that of Article 200 of the Civil Code referred to above, while good morals mean the moral perceptions of
the decent and reasonably thinking average social person (Plenary Supreme Court 33/1987, NoV 36.324). Also, the
social purpose refers to the broader interest of society from the exercise of the right and the economic purpose to the
economic interest of the person exercising the right (V. Vathrakokoilis, Interpretation – case law of the Civil Code,
volume one, 2001 edition, p. 1125, 1129-1130).
Because due to the above self-evident errors regarding the calculation of the “Extraordinary Special Duty on Electrified
Built Surfaces (E.E.T.I.D.E.)” the electricity consumption bill becomes extremely excessive and we are unable to pay it,
as a result of which our residence is at immediate risk of disconnection of its electricity supply by the opposing party,
and in order to prevent irreparable harm both to us and to our minor daughter, given that our living in the residence
in question would become practically impossible, resulting, among other things, in offence to our personality, an offence
which is unlawful, since we are obliged to pay an excessive debt which we are unable to pay and which is incorrect, and
in any event strongly disputed, the opposing party having no right for this reason to proceed with the disconnection
of the electricity supply of our residence.
Because D.E.I., according to the electricity supply contract signed between us, has the right to add to the bills it issues
any other debt of the consumer (e.g. municipal charges, municipal taxes, the disputed special duty) and in case of non-payment
of the bill by the consumer to disconnect the electricity supply to them, however this term, interpreted as required by
good faith, taking into account business usages, presupposes a debt correctly cleared and in no case incorrect, otherwise
not strongly disputed.
Because in this specific case, due to my proven inability to pay the excessive, unbearable and incorrect D.E.I. bill, the payment
deadline of which is 14-11-2011, I am consequently at risk at any moment of disconnection of the electricity supply of our
residence, making certain (if this happens) the offence to my personality, given that there will be diminishing interference
in its sphere by the opposing party, that is, in some of the goods composing our personality, such as our health, our physical
integrity, the image of our person towards others, with the consequence that the immediate threat of disconnection of the
electricity supply of our residence offends self-evident manifestations of our physical, mental and spiritual health, and the
threatened disconnection of the electricity supply of our residence is obviously UNLAWFUL since, without fault on our part,
we are obliged to pay an excessive, unbearable and obviously incorrect electricity consumption bill of the opposing party.
Because all contracts, including the one connecting me with the opposing party, must be interpreted as required by good faith,
taking into account business usages. Good faith means the fairness and honesty required in transactions according to the judgment
of a decent and prudent person, and therefore no one can oblige us to pay an excessive and unbearable bill for us, for which the
opposing party itself admits that it has been issued unlawfully, irregularly and that in any case it is incorrect.
Because any disconnection of the electricity supply connection of our residence constitutes obvious contractual breach by the
opposing party and in any event the disconnection of the electricity supply connection also constitutes an offence to my personality,
since obviously there exists in this threatened disconnection the element of unlawfulness (given that in no case do I owe the excessive
electricity consumption bill of the opposing party), this action constituting exercise of a right of lesser importance than our right,
and in any case the threat of disconnection of the electricity supply of our residence will be exercised abusively, since it exceeds the
limits imposed by good faith, good morals and the social and economic purpose of the opposing party’s right.
Because on my part I am absolutely consistent and already on 21-11-2011, I paid to the first of you the amount of 44.80 euros, an
amount corresponding to the consumption of electricity, municipal charges, municipal taxes, ERT and VAT.
Because the second of you, Municipality of Aristotle, confines itself to granting relevant certificates for the total electrified surfaces,
without unfortunately providing any way out of the problem so as to solve it by restoring reality. However, no solution is given by the
first of you, D.E.I., either.
Because based on the contract between me and the first of you, I am a customer of the first of you company. When contracts were concluded
between me and your organization, at no point in the contract is it stated that the contracting subscribers are obliged to pay a special real
estate duty through your organization.
Therefore, in the absence of express mention of such obligation on their part, you are not entitled to compulsory collection of the special
real estate duty, much less to proceed with disconnection of electricity when I offer to pay only the bill for electricity consumption as had
happened until now.
Based on Article 53 of Law 4021/2011 and POL 1211/10-10-2011 (Government Gazette 2298/B΄/13-10-2011) decision of the Deputy Minister of Finance,
your company is obliged to disconnect the electricity supply in case one of your customers refuses to pay the Special Real Estate Duty, which
will be recorded on the electricity bill which you have already sent to the members of our settlement.
Because we dispute the so-called Extraordinary Special Duty on Electrified Surfaces as an unfair, unlawful and unconstitutional tax for the
lawful and well-founded reasons set out below:
a) The imposition of the new real estate property duty is linked to zone prices and the age of buildings, but is not linked to the actual income
of the taxpayer-owner. In order for a tax to be proportional and compatible with our Constitution, it must be proportionate to each person’s
taxpaying capacity, according to Article 4 par. 5 of the Constitution.
The above-mentioned law violates Articles 17 (par. 1) and 4 (par. 5) of the Constitution, since taxation of real estate property, under the above
provisions of the Constitution, is conceivable only if this property yields some revenue. That is, when it produces, directly or indirectly, some
income. It is a form of planned confiscation of individual property, which directly offends the Constitution.
b) By the above law and the relevant ministerial decision, the principle prohibiting double taxation is violated, namely the taxation of the same
taxable matter for the same reason. The imposition of the new special real estate duty constitutes a second taxation of real estate owners for the
same reason (in essence a second real estate property tax), given that holders of real estate property with a value exceeding 200,000 euros have
already paid the Real Estate Property Tax and indeed for the same financial year (2011). Double taxation is contrary both to Article 17 of our
Constitution and to the First Additional Protocol to the ECHR, which protect property and property rights in general.
c) Article 2 par. 1 of the Constitution provides that: “respect and protection of the value of the human being constitute the primary obligation
of the State”. This provision, which is found in Section A of the first part of the Constitution, entitled “Form of Government”, does not establish
an “individual right”, but characterizes our democratic regime as anthropocentric, founded on the value of the human being. Respect for it is
elevated to the highest criterion of expression and action of the organs of the State. The value of the human being primarily includes human
personality as an internal feeling of honor and as social recognition of reputation. Based on this provision of Article 2, which is not a mere
declaration but a rule of constitutional law, the State, that is all state organs, must not only “respect” but also “protect” this value
(Plenary Supreme Court 40/1998).
It is a fundamental constitutional provision exempt from provisions subject to revision or suspension (Article 110 par. 1 and Article 48 par. 1
of the Constitution).
The real estate duty is contrary to the principle of respect and protection of the value of the human being:
1) Because it degrades the taxpayer-owner, even the unemployed and the economically weaker person, into an object for the achievement of
“extraordinary” fiscal targets for deficit reduction.
2) The disconnection of electricity to persons unable to pay the tax leads them to extreme destitution and endangers their health and survival (!).
3) It exercises a kind of psychological violence and threat on economically weaker persons, such that it is incompatible with the fundamental
individual rights of our Constitution and the democratic traditions of our country.
d) Offence to freedom of transactions and economic freedom under Articles 5 par. 1 and 106 of the Constitution.
The imposition of the real estate tax through D.E.I. bills or other providers violates both the Constitution and the terms of the private law contract
signed by the société anonyme with each consumer. The contracts signed expressly define the obligations of the contracting parties. Therefore, no
other obligation arises for consumers apart from payment of the cost of the electricity they consumed. The regulation imposing on us consumers the
payment of a tax to a third entity violates, on the one hand, the terms of the contract between us and, on the other, the constitutionally guaranteed
principle of freedom of transactions and economic freedom. It invalidates electricity supply contracts signed by private consumers even with 100%
private electricity supply companies. It constitutes an impermissible restriction on economic freedom in violation also of the principle of proportionality.
Based on decision no. 33/2002 of the Plenary of the Supreme Court, the State cannot by subsequent legislative regulation unilaterally change, modify
or invalidate valid private law contracts.
e) Conflict with the principle of legality of taxation.
Article 78 par. 1 of the Constitution provides: “No tax shall be imposed or collected without a formal law defining the subject of taxation and the
income, the type of property, expenses and transactions or their categories to which the tax relates.” Pursuant to this regulation, the constitutionality
of a provision is doubtful where it provides that the basis for calculating the tax is not determined by law as it will be applied by administrative
authorities, but will be determined (or has already been determined) by D.E.I. or alternative electricity suppliers. The reason is simple: the use of
the calculation method followed by D.E.I. constitutes tacit but clear authorization to a legal entity governed by private law to determine the object
of the tax, which the tax legislator failed to determine sufficiently. This regulation conflicts not only with the above provision requiring the object
of the tax to be determined by law, but also, to a greater extent, with the prohibition of authorization to the administration, much more to a private
person, to determine one of the elements of the tax, and in this case the calculation basis, which is the surface area of the property to be taxed.
Law 2130/1993 is based on a completely different legal taxation system: the imposition of contributory charges by local authorities. In this specific
category of public revenues, legislative authorization to administrative organs is permitted (it is not certain that D.E.I. could be included among
them). However, within this system, the provisions are reviewed from the standpoint of whether or not there is reciprocity. It is obvious that the
legislator is attempting to transfer the possibility of determining the object of the duty by authorization into a completely different legal framework
in which determination of the tax basis by authorization is not constitutionally tolerable.
f) According to decision no. 1934/1998 of the Plenary of the Council of State, D.E.I. as a legal entity governed by private law and the private companies
active in the production or distribution of electricity are not entitled to collect taxes and disconnect electricity supply to their customers who, for
any reason, refuse to pay the “real estate duty”. According to the reasoning of the above decision, any assignment of the exercise of public authority
to legal entities governed by private law (such as D.E.I. and other private electricity supply companies) is contrary to Articles 1 par. 3 and 26 par. 2
of the Constitution. Both the collection of taxes and the imposition of administrative sanctions due to refusal to pay taxes constitute elements of the
exercise of public (executive) authority, which, however, constitutes the quintessential expression of State sovereignty and is exercised only by the
State and legal entities governed by public law.
Because the respondent has overcharged the D.E.I. bill with double the E.E.T.I.D.E. than that corresponding to the proportional square meters of my
property.
Because I am a customer of the respondent, a relationship determined by the contract between us.
Because from the contract - application for electricity supply between me and the respondent, no obligation arises for me to pay the so-called Extraordinary
Special Duty on Electrified Built Surfaces.
Because we may decide not to pay the extraordinary special duty on electrified built surfaces for the reasons mentioned above.
Because I am willing to pay the amount representing the value of electricity, plus VAT, plus municipal charges and ERT charges.
Because if, in the event that I do not pay the amount of the special real estate duty (Law 4021/2011), the respondent proceeds with disconnection of my
electricity, serious and perhaps irreparable harm will be caused to me, as there is a risk to the health or even the life itself of any member of my family.
III. URGENT CASE FOR THE TAKING OF INTERIM MEASURES:
Because due to the successive and continuous taxes that I have paid lately, my taxpaying capacity has already been exhausted, taking into account also
the large cuts suffered by my family income in the last 2 years.
Because I pay monthly an amount exceeding €2,000.00 for housing loans relating to property that we jointly own with my spouse in ........ Attica and our
income is already insufficient to cover our obligations to the Banks.
Because to date I have made superhuman efforts to cover all my obligations to the State, the Banks, as well as the needs of my family, as a result of which
the limits of my possibilities have long since been exhausted.
Because I am unable, due to serious financial hardship, to pay the so-called Extraordinary Special Duty on Electrified Surface of Real Estate, and the
above-described financial situation I shall prove before Your Court with witnesses and documents.
Because, among other things, I am expecting the Extraordinary Special Duty on Electrified Surface of Real Estate also for other properties that we own with
my husband in Thessaloniki, as a result of which our burden from this taxation is not limited to the above amount.
Because due to my financial inability to pay the Extraordinary Special Duty on Electrified Surface of Real Estate there is an immediate risk that the
electricity supply to my residence will be disconnected by the respondent D.E.I., since according to the provision of Article 53 par. 11 of Law 4021/2011,
if the real estate duty is not paid, D.E.I. and the alternative electricity suppliers issue an order for disconnection of the consumer’s electricity to the
Network Operator, who proceeds with disconnection of the connection and they do not reconnect it until the owed duty is paid.
Because the disconnection of my electricity supply will immediately endanger my survival and the survival of my family, since the supply of electricity
covers our basic living needs (washing, nutrition, heating, etc.) and therefore it is absolutely certain that we will be led to absolute destitution in
case of disconnection of electricity.
Because therefore there is an urgent case, it must be ordered as an appropriate interim measure for the temporary regulation of the situation, the prohibition
of disconnection of the electricity supply, by D.E.I., of my built surface referred to in the history of the present.
Because the imposition of the Extraordinary Special Duty on Electrified Surface of Real Estate is contrary to fundamental provisions of our Constitution.
Because disconnection of electricity to persons who are unable to pay the tax directly offends human dignity guaranteed by Article 2 par. 1 of the Constitution.
Because the rule of paragraph 4 of Article 692 of the Code of Civil Procedure that interim measures must not consist in satisfaction of the right whose
securing or preservation is requested recedes only in those extreme cases where there is a likelihood of danger of significant offence to the value of the
human being, which is constitutionally safeguarded (Article 2 par. 1 of the Constitution) (see Single-Member Court of First Instance of Athens 16803/1982,
D 14.54 property damage (see Single-Member Court of First Instance of Athens 16803/82 D 14.54, Single-Member Court of First Instance of Athens 2139/81
NoV 29.733, Magistrates’ Court of Rhodes 22/2007 A PUBLICATION NOMOS, Single-Member Court of First Instance of Athens 13130/1997, EDPol 1997.209,
NoV 1987.323).
Because Your Court is competent by subject matter and territory to hear the present application for interim measures.
Because the dispute with the opposing party is based on a private law contract between us, from which the electricity supply of my above property also
derives. The opposing party has been authorized to calculate and collect this tax and also to impose the sanction arising therefrom, and being a legal
entity governed by private law, its imminent order for disconnection of electricity falls within the jurisdiction of the civil courts.
Because, irrespective of my inability to pay the said tax, the opposing party is not entitled to collect taxes even if ordered by law, since such authorization
lacks constitutional legality, and the Courts of the country must not take into account laws contrary to the Constitution.
Because therefore my application is entirely lawful, based on the provisions of Articles 731 et seq. of the Code of Civil Procedure, well-founded and true.
FOR THESE REASONS
And with express reservation of all our lawful rights.
WE REQUEST
That our application be accepted.
That it be ordered as an appropriate interim measure that the disconnection of the electricity supply, by D.E.I., of my residence referred to in the history
of the present be prohibited and
By Temporary Order of Your Court, that it be ordered temporarily, and until the issuance of a decision on the present, that the disconnection of the
electricity supply, by D.E.I., of our residence referred to in the history of the present be prohibited.
That the respondent company be ordered to pay our legal costs.
THE AUTHORIZED LAWYER
TEMPORARY ORDER
(Article 691 par. 2 CCP) THE SINGLE-MEMBER COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Composed of Judge Katsiouni Aikaterini, Judge of the Court of First Instance, appointed by the President
of the Court of First Instance.
Having taken into account the content of the application and what the applicant’s attorney orally stated:
ACCEPTS temporary order. PROHIBITS the disconnection of the electricity supply of the applicant’s
property until the hearing of the case.
The Judge
AIKATERINI KARTSIOUNI
signature
