Award of a total sum of 29.500 euros in favour of our client as compensation for tort

In the context of the adjudication of the action for damages in tort due to the commission of the offences of theft with intent to commit and computer fraud with intent to commit against the plaintiff and our client, namely the removal of 28. 500 euros from the ATM through the bank cash withdrawal card, the 313/2024 decision of the Athens Court of First Instance was issued, which partially upheld our client’s claim and obliged the opposing parties to pay the amount of 29,500 euros as compensation, and the amount of 880 euros for court costs, while the decision was declared provisionally enforceable in the amount of 10,000 euros.

According to the 313/2024 decision of the Court of First Instance of Athens, it was decided:

«…3. With these contents and requests, the present action, for the subject matter of which the appropriate court stamp duty with the statutory surcharges has been paid, while for the admissibility of its discussion, an information document on the possibility of mediation of the dispute has been filed with the introductory statement of the action, in accordance with the provisions of Article 3(2) of the Convention. Law 4640/2019, is admissibly introduced for discussion before the competent court of this Court (Articles 14(2) and 22 of the Civil Procedure Code), in the present ordinary procedure (Articles 215, 226, 233, 237 et seq. CCP, as amended by Law 4335/2015). It is definite, since it contains all the elements necessary for the admissibility of the application (Articles 118 and 216 of the CCP), and lawful, both as regards its main and subsidiary basis, based on Articles 297, 298, 299, 340, 341, 345, 346, 873 et seq., 914 et seq., 932 CC, 333(1), 372, 386 PC, 176 et seq., 907, 908(1)(d) and 1047 CCP. The action must therefore be further investigated as to its substantive merits.

4.There is no objection to the present action which may be examined of its own motion, and the facts set out in the application may be confessed. Consequently, since the defendants are deserted, the factual allegations contained in the application are fully established, since they are deemed to have been admitted on their behalf (Article 271(3) of the Civil Code, in conjunction with Article 352(1) of the same Code), in relation to the unlawful acts committed against the applicant and the amount of the positive damage suffered by the latter. However, the amount of the reasonable monetary compensation for the non-material damage suffered by the applicant as a result of the unlawful and culpable conduct of the defendants cannot be considered to be confessed, since it is not a factual matter and cannot be the subject of a confession, and is determined in the Court’s discretion and on the basis of the lessons of common experience. In the present case, the Court, having regard to: a) the degree and gravity of the defendants’ fault (malice), b) the circumstances under which their wrongful acts were committed, c) the type of legal interests affected and the intensity of the infringement, as well as d) the social and economic situation of the parties (CP 284/2012, TNP NOMOS), considers as reasonable, for the satisfaction of the plaintiff’s moral damages, the amount of 1. 000 euros. Accordingly, the action must be upheld in part, as to its principal plea, as being well founded in substance, and the defendants must be ordered to pay the applicant jointly and severally the total sum of EUR (28 500 + 1 000=)/29 500, together with interest at the statutory rate from the date of service of the application. As regards the application for a declaration of provisional enforcement of the present judgment, the Court considers that it should be granted in part for the sum of EUR 10 000, since any delay in enforcement would cause the applicant significant damage. Furthermore, the application for personal detention against the defendants as a means of enforcing the judgment must be dismissed as unfounded in substance, since under Article 1047(2) of the CCP personal detention is not ordered for a claim of less than EUR 30 000. Finally, a fee for an opposition in default must be fixed for each defendant in the event of an opposition on their behalf (Articles 501, 502(1) and 505 of the CCP) and they must be ordered to pay the applicant’s costs (Articles 176, 184 and 191(2) of the CCP), as set out in particular in the operative part of the order. … ORDER the defendants to pay the plaintiff jointly and severally the sum of twenty-nine thousand five hundred euros (€29,500), together with statutory interest from the date of service of the application until payment. ORDERS that the judgment be declared partially provisionally enforceable in part for the sum of EUR 10 000. ORDERS the defendants to pay the applicant’s costs, which it fixes at EUR 880. …».