JUDGMENT ON INTERIM MEASURES – INFRINGEMENT OF THE APPLICANT’S PERSONALITY RIGHT THROUGH SYSTEMATIC HARASSMENT/STALKING BY HER FORMER PARTNER – CONCEPT OF PERSONALITY AND THE LEGAL INTERESTS PROTECTED – IMMINENT DANGER AND URGENT CASE – MORAL HARASSMENT AND ANY FORM OF PSYCHOLOGICAL VIOLENCE BY A FORMER PARTNER CONSTITUTES INFRINGEMENT OF THE PERSONALITY RIGHT. – It is deemed probable that the former partner, through the aforementioned conduct, continuously and unlawfully infringes the applicant’s personality right, in its aspects of honour, dignity and private life, and for this reason an urgent case exists for the regulation of the situation by the granting of the appropriate interim measures against the former partner for the protection of the applicant’s personality – The former partner must be ordered to refrain in the future from any act infringing the applicant’s personality right in its aspects of honour, bodily integrity and private life, and the former partner must be prohibited from approaching the applicant within a distance of less than 300 metres, as well as from communicating with her in any manner – The application is granted – (Articles 57, 59 of the Civil Code (AK), 731, 732 of the Code of Civil Procedure (KPolD)).
(Athens Single-Member Court of First Instance 1414/2024 (Interim Measures))
ATHENS COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
INTERIM MEASURES
THE ATHENS SINGLE-MEMBER COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
. . .
HAVING STUDIED THE CASE FILE
HAVING DELIBERATED ACCORDING TO LAW
. . .
In the present case, the applicant, by her present application, alleges that the respondent continuously infringes her personality right in the manners described, and, invoking an urgent case and an imminent risk of repetition of similar conduct by the respondent, she seeks, on a proper construction of the pleading: (a) that the respondent be ordered to refrain from communicating with her in any manner (by telephone, online, etc.); (b) that the respondent be prohibited from approaching, within a distance of less than 300 metres, her residence, herself and her relatives; (c) that a monetary penalty of EUR 2,000.00 each and personal detention of one to three months be threatened against the respondent for each breach of the operative part of the judgment to be issued; and (d) that the respondent be ordered to pay her court costs.
With this content, the present application has been filed admissibly and within the subject-matter and territorial jurisdiction and is brought for hearing before the Court under the procedure for interim measures (Articles 22, 591(1), 683 and 686 et seq. of the Code of Civil Procedure (KPolD)). It is legally founded, based on the provisions set out in the above legal reasoning, as well as on those of Articles 176, 731, 732 and 947 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It must therefore be examined further on the merits.
From the sworn testimony of witnesses E.A. and E.V., who were examined at the instance of the applicant and the respondent respectively, and from all the documents without exception lawfully submitted by the parties, including the sworn affidavits no. ……. and ……/…-02-2024 of the respondent’s witnesses M.G. and M.K. respectively, lawfully taken before the Athens notary public S.F., the following is deemed probable: The parties met through an online application in the summer of 2022 and entered into a romantic relationship for 13 months, until they separated at the applicant’s initiative. From 24-08-2023 the respondent, who was evidently displeased with the applicant’s decision to end their relationship, called the applicant by telephone approximately 20 times per day; when the applicant blocked him on 29-08, he asked her via online application to unblock him because he was about to undergo surgery and was leaving his estate to her. On 04-09-2023, the respondent sent the applicant intimidating messages via online application demanding that she return EUR 210 as the balance of her debt from a joint holiday they had taken, otherwise he would inform her mother as well as her workplace. Subsequently, after the applicant informed him that she had retained a lawyer regarding this conduct of his, the respondent began sending emails to the applicant’s lawyer as well, on 05-09, 07-09, 10-09, 12-09 and 17-09-2023.
Furthermore, on 07-09-2023, he went to the apartment building of the applicant, where she resides with her mother, and rang the doorbell of her residence in order to communicate with her. He did the same on 09-09-2023, on 14-09-2023 and on 18-09-2023, while on 16-09-2023 he went to ……. to the residence of the applicant’s sister and rang the doorbell. His harassing conduct escalated when he telephoned a fellow student of the applicant by the name of V.G. in order to find out whether he was in a relationship with the applicant. On 09-10-2023 the respondent, having sent an email to the applicant, telephoned her workplace, and likewise on 14 and 15-10-2023 he rang the doorbell of the residence of the applicant and her mother. The applicant filed criminal complaint no. …/… in respect of the aforementioned acts at the Omonoia Police Station on …..-09-2023.
The above were not refuted by the testimony of the respondent’s witness in the courtroom, nor by the sworn affidavits, since the reason why the applicant is acting against him was not sufficiently explained. Moreover, the applicant produces emails and messages from the respondent which establish his continuous harassing conduct towards her. In view of the foregoing, it is deemed probable that the respondent, through the aforementioned conduct, continuously and unlawfully infringes the applicant’s personality right, in its aspects of honour, dignity and private life, and for this reason an urgent case exists for the regulation of the situation by the granting of the appropriate interim measures against the respondent for the protection of the applicant’s personality.
Accordingly, the present application must be granted as well-founded on the merits, so that the respondent be ordered to refrain in the future from any act infringing the applicant’s personality right in its aspects of honour, bodily integrity and private life, and that the respondent be prohibited from approaching the applicant within a distance of less than 300 metres, as well as from communicating with her in any manner (by telephone, online, etc.).
At the same time, a monetary penalty of EUR 500 and personal detention of one (1) month must be threatened against the respondent for each breach of the above obligation and prohibition. In addition, a time-limit of sixty (60) days must be set for the filing of an ordinary lawsuit by the applicant against the respondent. Finally, the respondent must, owing to his defeat, be ordered to pay the applicant’s court costs, as more specifically set out in the operative part.
FOR THESE REASONS
ADJUDICATES with both parties present.
GRANTS the application in part.
ORDERS the respondent to refrain from communicating with the applicant in any manner whatsoever (by telephone, online, etc.).
PROHIBITS the respondent from approaching the applicant within a distance of less than three hundred (300) metres.
THREATENS against the respondent a monetary penalty of five hundred euros (EUR 500.00) and personal detention of one (1) month, for each culpable breach by him of the above provisions of the judgment.
SETS a time-limit of sixty (60) days for the filing of an ordinary lawsuit by the applicant against the respondent.
ORDERS the respondent to pay the applicant’s court costs, which it determines at the sum of three hundred euros (EUR 300.00).
ADJUDGED, decided and published in Athens, in an extraordinary public sitting in its courtroom, without the presence of the parties and their authorised lawyers, on 19-3-24.
THE JUDGE THE CLERK
- See also article Revocation of Interim Measures Judgment
- See also article Interim Measures for Real Estate
- See also article Interim Measures Concerning Possession
- See also article Interim Measures in Family Disputes
- See also article Interim Measures – Harassment via Fake Instagram/Facebook Accounts
- See also article Interim Measures against Facebook/Twitter/Instagram
- See also article on Interim Measures: Relocation from the Family Home
- See also article on Interim Measures: Joint Custody of Children
- See also article on Interim Measures: Custody and Child Abduction
- See also article on Interim Measures: Change of City of Residence of Minor Children
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ON INTERIM MEASURES AGAINST HARASSMENT BY A FORMER PARTNER
1. What exactly do interim measures protect in the case of harassment?
Interim measures against harassment by a former partner protect the personality right, as enshrined in Articles 57 and 59 of the Civil Code (AK). Specifically, they safeguard the aspects of honour, dignity, bodily integrity and private life. Any form of psychological violence, systematic stalking, unwanted telephone calls, messages, appearances at the residence or workplace, as well as communications through third parties (relatives, friends, employer), constitutes an unlawful infringement of the personality right. The court may impose an obligation to refrain from any communication and a prohibition on approaching within a specified distance, usually 200 to 500 metres from the person and the residence.
2. What can I request from the court in an application for interim measures?
The application may seek a prohibition on the respondent’s approach within a specific distance from the person, the residence, the workplace and the close associates of the applicant. In addition, an obligation to refrain from any communication in any manner, namely by telephone, messages, online applications, email or through third parties. Further, the threat of a monetary penalty and personal detention for each breach is sought, which functions as a means of indirect enforcement under Article 947 of the Code of Civil Procedure (KPolD). In judgment 1414/2024 of the Athens Single-Member Court of First Instance, a prohibition on approach within 300 metres was imposed and a monetary penalty of EUR 500 per breach was threatened.
3. How quickly is a judgment on interim measures issued?
The interim measures procedure is expedited precisely because it presupposes an urgent case and imminent danger. From the filing of the application until the hearing, two to six weeks usually elapse, depending on the workload of the Court of First Instance. In particularly urgent cases, where the danger is immediate, a temporary restraining order may be sought, which is issued on the same or the following day and remains in force until the hearing of the main application. The final judgment is usually published within one to two months of the hearing. After issuance, a time-limit (as a rule 60 days) is set for the filing of an ordinary lawsuit, so that the measures are not overturned.
4. What evidence do I need for the application to be granted?
The burden of proof is reduced; mere likelihood of the harassment suffices. Screenshots from messages, online applications, emails, call logs with times and dates, and any written communication are gathered. The detailed telephone record provided by the carrier is important. In addition, witness testimony from relatives, friends, colleagues or neighbours who were eyewitnesses or earwitnesses of the conduct. The prior filing of a criminal complaint with the Public Prosecutor’s Office of the Court of First Instance is also useful, as it documents the timeline of the reported events. Medical certificates or psychological assessments strengthen the argument regarding the consequences of the psychological violence.
5. What are my chances of having my application granted?
When the harassment is documented with consistent and repeated evidence, Greek courts as a rule grant such applications, recognising that any form of moral harassment and psychological violence by a former partner constitutes an infringement of the personality right. The frequency of contacts, persistence despite the express refusal of communication, the involvement of third parties (mother, employer, lawyer) and the escalation of the conduct are decisive factors. Case-law, as reflected in judgment 1414/2024 of the Athens Single-Member Court of First Instance, clearly recognises the right to protection. However, each case is judged on its specific facts and the final assessment is made after review of the file.
6. What is the role of the lawyer in this procedure?
The lawyer first assesses whether the facts constitute an unlawful infringement of the personality right and whether the urgency requirement is met. They draft the application for interim measures with a detailed account of the facts, organise the evidence, prepare the witnesses and obtain sworn affidavits where necessary. Where the danger is immediate, they seek a temporary restraining order for immediate protection. They represent the applicant at the hearing and rely on case-law to strengthen the request. At the same time, they consider the supplementary filing of a criminal complaint with the Public Prosecutor’s Office of the Court of First Instance for criminal offences such as threat, extortion, breach of domestic peace. Ziamparas D. & Associates Law Firm has significant experience in cases concerning the protection of the personality right from harassment.