DEDDIE (the Hellenic Electricity Distribution Network Operator) was proven to have unjustly accused a businessman of electricity theft. The recent judgment of the Athens Multi-Member Court of First Instance (PPrAth 461/2025) is a highly significant ruling, as its meticulously reasoned grounds expose the opaque manner in which DEDDIE imposes fines for alleged electricity theft, e.g. on-site inspection reports drawn up by DEDDIE itself, DEDDIE witnesses who have no personal knowledge of the cases, and so forth.
By all indications, the pressure placed on DEDDIE officials to identify cases of electricity theft has led to a peculiar witch-hunt, resulting in the imposition of very heavy fines on consumers, even when it is visible to the naked eye that they have committed no electricity theft.
In the case in which this judgment – a slap in the face for DEDDIE – was issued, it was fully proven that the plaintiff did not commit theft of electrical energy, since he had never tampered with the meter.
Moreover, there was another obvious indication that he had not committed electricity theft, which DEDDIE officials chose to ignore in order to impose the prescribed sanctions on him: during the disputed period, the consumption of the business was increasing rather than decreasing, as would have been the case had electricity theft truly occurred.
Indeed, DEDDIE’s own manual on electricity theft, which the officials disregarded, expressly provides that no electricity theft can be presumed unless a reduction in consumption is also observed. This is, in any event, a matter of common sense: someone who steals electricity obviously does not do so in order to watch their consumption rise.
The court “wiped out” the sum of more than EUR 20,000 claimed by DEDDIE from the businessman and ordered DEDDIE to pay him pecuniary compensation for moral damages.
The Judgment
According to the judgment:
The business accused of electricity theft entered into a lease of commercial premises in 2012, for a term of twelve years. It employs 14 staff at its premises.
The supply that powers the ground-floor shop is in the name of the plaintiff businessman. An electrician had informed him from the outset that the meter for the electricity supply was old. From 2012 onwards, DEDDIE conducted regular inspections of the meter.
In the summer of 2017, an explosion occurred at a PPC (DEH) substation near the plaintiff’s premises. The explosion was followed by a loud bang and a power cut, which resulted in the total destruction of the central air-conditioning unit of the plaintiff’s shop.
Immediately after the explosion, a crew from the defendant (i.e. DEDDIE) arrived in order to repair the PPC substation. The defendant’s employee intervened in the disputed meter powering the plaintiff’s premises, removing its seals in order to reactivate its main switch. This event was not recorded in the defendant’s IT system; however, the plaintiff’s electrician was present at the incident.
On 29 May 2018, a crew from the defendant carried out an on-site inspection and metering check of the disputed supply. Following the on-site inspection, the meter was removed the same day and a new meter was installed.
After its removal, the aforementioned meter was sealed and a sealing protocol dated 29-05-2018 was drawn up to that effect. A competent officer from the police authority was also present during the inspection and removal of the disputed meter. In the contents of the sealing protocol, the employee who drew it up noted in the observations that the seals were cut (tampered with).
Subsequently, on 17-09-2018, a laboratory examination of the meter was carried out at DEDDIE’s specialised laboratory in the plaintiff’s presence. The plaintiff’s electrician was also present during the laboratory examination. The results of the laboratory examination were not communicated to the plaintiff on the day of the examination.
Four years after the laboratory examination, by its letter no. ./21-12-2022, the defendant informed the plaintiff that, following the laboratory examination of the meter no. . of the aforementioned three-phase supply, it had been established that the meter had its seals tampered with, that in the meter’s connection box the screws of the bridges feeding the voltage coils on all three phases had been found slightly unscrewed, but that there was electrical continuity.
The plate bore signs of frequent removal and reinstallation, and the meter was found broken inside its casing, with part of the connection box detached from the base, with the result that the neutral cable had been cut from its bridge, without, however, this affecting the operation of the meter. The meter had tampered seals and was within the error limits of its class, and the counter recorded consumption in accordance with the meter’s errors.
According to the defendant’s letter, the above findings establish in an indisputable manner culpable interference with the metering device for the purpose of distorting the recording of consumed energy and substantiate the characterisation of the case as established electricity theft over a period of 1,531 days. The corresponding quantity of unrecorded electrical energy was estimated methodologically at 101,789 kilowatt-hours on the basis of the calculated imputed consumption, corresponding to a value of EUR 18,716.97 plus VAT at 6%.
The defendant also added the administrative cost charged to the plaintiff, amounting to EUR 550 plus VAT at 24%. Therefore, the total debt charged by the defendant to the plaintiff amounted to the sum of EUR 20,521.99.
In January 2023, the plaintiff submitted his objections, by which he denied, with reasons, having committed electricity theft, explaining that the indications found on the disputed meter were not caused by him but were due to the necessary intervention in the meter by the defendant’s employee in order to reactivate the meter’s main switch in the summer of 2017 after the explosion. His objections were rejected by the defendant.
However, upon this Court’s review of the four photographs attached to the body of the letter dated 21-12-2022, on which the defendant relied, among other evidence, to support the commission of electricity theft by the plaintiff, it does not appear that the meter was broken nor that any of the cables was cut.
The above findings concerning the disputed meter constitute indications and not proof of culpable interference with the metering device, since it was operating normally within the error limits of its class. The normal operation of the meter is also corroborated by the bills produced and invoked by the plaintiff.
In particular, it was proven that from March 2014 until May 2018, the period during which the act of theft of electrical energy is alleged to have been committed, the plaintiff regularly paid the amounts charged to him by PPC (DEH) for electricity consumption. Specifically, for the period from 28-11-2012 until 31-03-2014, he was required to pay PPC the sum of EUR 5,668. Indeed, during the same period in which the theft is alleged to have begun, instead of a decrease in electricity consumption and a corresponding reduction in the amount paid for that consumption, an increase in consumed energy was recorded.
Moreover, the bills issued by PPC show the declared meter readings taken by the defendant’s employees. During the period from 2014 to 2018, in which the electricity theft is alleged to have taken place, seven (7) readings were carried out. Before the substation explosion in the summer of 2017, the last reading had been declared as taken on 28-03-2017.
If there had truly been interference with the plaintiff’s disputed meter, then one of the defendant’s crews would have detected it, including the employee who intervened in the disputed meter in 2017. From the foregoing, it was proven that all the findings on the disputed meter of the supply powering the premises leased by the plaintiff do not constitute proof of interference with the metering device.
Rather, the fact that a competent employee of the defendant in 2017, after the explosion, opened the meter box in order to activate the main switch, and that the meter was already old (year of manufacture 1991), demonstrates that the indications of tampering are not consistent with the plaintiff’s consumption history.
The fact that the seals were found “worn” and the meter inside its casing broken yet still functioning is connected to its age and not to any culpable interference aimed at allowing the plaintiff to unlawfully appropriate the value of the unrecorded electrical energy. Since no decrease in consumed energy was recorded, but on the contrary an increase, the “removal” of electrical energy within the meaning of Article 372 of the Penal Code (PK) cannot be attributed to the plaintiff as perpetrator, so as to substantiate the actus reus of the offence of theft.
In the light of the foregoing, the lawsuit must be partially upheld as founded on the merits and (a) it must be declared that the plaintiff does not owe the sum of EUR 20,571.99 charged to him by the defendant for the commission of electricity theft for the period from 20-03-2014 to 29-05-2018; (b) the defendant must be ordered to pay the plaintiff the sum of EUR 1,710.17; (c) the defendant must be ordered to refrain in the future from threatening to cut off electricity supply to any supply registered in the plaintiff’s name on the ground of electricity theft in respect of the disputed supply; and (d) the defendant must be ordered to pay the plaintiff the sum of EUR 500 by way of pecuniary compensation for the moral damages he sustained.
- See also article Flagrante Delicto Procedure
- See also article on Acquittal Judgments for Electricity Theft
- See also article Child Pornography
- See also article Defamation
- See also article Bodily Harm
- See also article Narcotics
- See also article Fraud
- See also article Forgery
- See also article Embezzlement
- See also article Manslaughter (Negligent Homicide)
- See also article Tax Evasion
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ON THE COURT JUDGMENT AGAINST DEDDIE
1. What does judgment PPrAth 461/2025 mean for me?
This judgment of the Athens Multi-Member Court of First Instance constitutes an important precedent for consumers or businesses who have had a fine for electricity theft imposed on them without having tampered with the meter. The court held that findings on the meter (worn seals, broken casing) constitute mere indications and not proof of culpable interference, especially where consumption shows an increase rather than a decrease. If you face a similar charge, the judgment provides strong arguments both for challenging the debt and for seeking compensation for moral damages.
2. What can I do if DEDDIE charges me with electricity theft?
The first step is the submission of written objections to DEDDIE within the prescribed deadlines, with detailed reasoning and the production of evidence (consumption bills, electrician’s certificates, witness statements). If the objections are rejected, the consumer files a negative declaratory action before the competent Court of First Instance, seeking a declaration that they do not owe the sum, together with a claim for compensation for moral damages and an injunction prohibiting electricity disconnection. An application for interim measures is also recommended where there is an imminent risk of disconnection of supply.
3. What documents and evidence do I need?
All electricity bills of the recent years must be gathered in order to demonstrate the trend of consumption, since an increase in consumption operates in the consumer’s favour. Also required are the on-site inspection and sealing protocol, DEDDIE’s letter of charge, photographs of the meter, the laboratory examination report, evidence of the meter’s age, electrician’s certificates, witness statements from persons present during interventions by DEDDIE crews, and any evidence demonstrating the absence of any intervention by the consumer.
4. How long do the court proceedings take?
The negative declaratory action before the Multi-Member Court of First Instance is typically heard within one to two years from filing, depending on the court’s caseload. Judgment is usually issued a few months after the hearing. If DEDDIE files an appeal, the proceedings are extended by a further one to two years before the Court of Appeals. In parallel, for immediate protection from disconnection, an application for interim measures is heard far more swiftly, within weeks.
5. What chances of success do I have in such a case?
The chances of success are significantly enhanced where consumption during the disputed period does not show a decrease, where the meter is old, where there has been a prior intervention by a DEDDIE crew or third-party factor (such as a substation explosion), where no indications were detected during previous regular inspections, and where the laboratory examination findings show normal operation within class error limits. Each case is judged on its own facts, but case-law is moving increasingly in a consumer-protective direction.
6. What is the role of the lawyer in electricity theft cases?
The lawyer analyses the on-site inspection report and the laboratory examination, identifies weaknesses and contradictions in DEDDIE’s argumentation, drafts the objections, files the declaratory action and the application for interim measures, represents the client in court and pursues compensation for moral damages. The Ziamparas D. & Associates law firm has specialised experience in cases challenging electricity theft, drawing on technical reports and consumption history as central items of evidence.