The Administrative Court of First Instance of Thessaloniki with the no. 2656/2022 Decision of on a case handled by our office, canceled the individual notification of the Thessaloniki KEAO with which it was summoned the objector, as the former Managing Director of the debtor public limited company - to settle or pay off a debt of the total amount of 106,344.09 euros, arising from the charge against overdue insurance contributions.
The objector argued, among other things, that the defendant's right to collect the legally asserted claims was already time-barred on 31.12.2017, since ten years had passed since the end of the financial year in which they were confirmed (2006), which began on 01.01.2007. Furthermore, he argued that, in this case, article 95 of Law 4387/2016 cannot be appliedsubject to the constitutional principles of legal certainty and proportionality. On the contrary, the defendant argued that the statute of limitations of his right to collect legal debts was interrupted by the re-notification of the acts in the years 2007 and 2015, as well as by the issuance of confiscations in the hands of a third party in the year 2017, with the result that it begins from scratch.
The Court ruled that nwhile the case under consideration would be covered by the regulation of article 95 par. 1 of Law 4387/2016, but, as stated, this regulation was deemed unconstitutional and is therefore inapplicable to the part that provides for doubling from ten (10) to twenty (20) years of the statute of limitations for the requirements of the Social Security bodies that are part of the E.F.K.A. Therefore, he accepted that at the time of issuance of the 7808/29.11.2018 individual notice, the defendant's right to collect the legal debts was time-barred, as the statute of limitations expired on 17.05.2016, rejecting as unfounded the arguments to the contrary.
Next is the body of no. 2656/2022 of the Decision of the Administrative Court of First Instance of Thessaloniki
No. of Decision 2656/2022
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF THESSALONIKI
Section G SINGLE MEMBERS
He met publicly in his audience on February 11, 2022 with Judge Alkisti Siarkou, First Judge of Administrative Courts, and Secretary, court clerk,
to judge the appeal with registration number AK4977/24.12.2018 of ……..
against the N.P.D.D. with the name "Single Social Security Agency" (E.F.K.A.) [..]
After the public meeting and after studying the relevant documents, he thought according to the law. His judgment is as follows:
1. Because, with the objection in question, which is legally reintroduced for discussion after the publication of no. 3354/2021 partially final and partially non-final (suspension of the progress of the trial due to a pending pre-trial matter before the SC on a critical legal issue) decision of this Court, the annulment of: a) the 7808/29.11.2018 individual notification of the Director of Regional K.E.A.O. Thessaloniki, with which Mrthe objector, as the former Managing Director of the debtor of I.K.A.-E.T.A.M. of an anonymous company with the name "………." to settle or pay off a debt of the total amount of 106,344.09 euros, arising from the charge against overdue insurance contributions, and b) of the cash confirmation acts contained in the above individual notification 921/16.05.2006, 913/16.05.2006 and 912/16.05.2006. The discussion of the contested objection was legally entered despite the absence of the objector, who was legally invited to attend it (see the proof of service dated 12-13-2021).
2. Because, in article 217 of the Code of Administrative Procedure (G.D.D.) sanctioned by the first article of Law 2717/1999 (Government Gazette A' 97), it is defined, in article 217, that: "1. An objection can be filed against any act issued in the context of the administrative enforcement process and, in particular, against: a) the act of cash receipt b) ...", in article 219 par. 1 (as this paragraph was replaced by article 30 of Law 3659/2008, A' 77) that: "The person who has a direct, personal and present legal interest or to whom such a right is recognized by a special provision of the law" is entitled to file an objection, in article 224 that: "1. The court controls the challenged act according to the law and the substance, within the limits of the objection, which are determined by the reasons and its request. 2. ... 5. Claims concerning the repayment of the claim for the satisfaction of which the execution is accelerated can be presented with the opportunity to challenge the act of cash certification or any act of the execution and it must be proven immediately" and in article 225 that: "If the court finds a violation of the law or substantial faults in the challenged act, it shall proceed with its total or partial annulment or amendment. Otherwise, it proceeds with the rejection of the opposition". Furthermore, in article 73 par. 2 of the K.E.D.E. it is defined that: "The debtor's opposition to the delayed execution is exercised ... for the following limiting reasons: a) ... d) if the debt was time-barred, e) ...".
3. Because the Income Tax Code in force at the relevant time (K.F.E., Law 2238/1994, Official Gazette A' 151), defined in article 101 that: "1. The following are subject to the tax: a) Domestic limited companies. b) ... 2. ...", in article 115 entitled "Liability of managing legal entities" (as par. 3 thereof was added by paragraph 6 of article 22 of Law 2648/1998, Official Gazette A' 238), that: " 1. The persons who are directors, managers or managing directors and liquidators of domestic limited liability companies ... at the time of their dissolution or merger, are personally and jointly liable for the payment of the tax due by these legal entities in accordance with this, as and the withheld tax, regardless of the time of their certification. ... 2. The persons who are directors, administrators and generally authorized to manage the legal entity, at the time of the dissolution of the other legal entities referred to in article 101, are personally and jointly liable for the payment of the tax due by these legal entities in accordance with present, as well as the taxes withheld, regardless of the time of their certification. 3. The persons referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 are personally and jointly liable for the withheld taxes and during the operation of the legal entity they represent, as follows: a) If the withholding tax has been made, all the persons who had one of the as above properties from the end of the tax return deadline and after. b) If the withholding tax has not been made, all persons who had one of the above qualities at the time the obligation to withhold the tax existed". Furthermore, the provisions of paragraph 2 of article 69 of Law 2676/1999 (Government Gazette A' 1) replaced the provisions of paragraph 4 of article 4 of Law 2556/1997 "Measures against tax evasion - ensuring IKA income, etc. .” (Government Gazette A' 270) and it was determined that: "The provisions of article 115 of Law 2238/1994 (Government Gazette 151 A'), as applicable each time, which refer to the responsibility of managing legal entities for the payment of the taxes due to Publicly, these persons are applied by analogy also for the payment of the debts owed to the I.K.A. insurance contributions".
4. Because, from the combination of the above provisions, it is concluded, among other things, that the acting manager, administrator or managing director of a domestic limited liability company is also responsible with his personal property for the obligations of the latter, these do not include the debts from insurance contributions . The responsibility of the above person, as a third party towards the company for the above debts, does not go back to the stage of their confirmation, but to the stage of their collection. Therefore, for the activation of his responsibility, the issuance in his name of the relevant individual notice of article 4 of the K.E.D.E. (and, already, for debts for which the K.E.A.O. receives notification of article 101 par. 4 para. b' of Law 4172/2013), by which he is notified of his debt, so that to have the possibility of an effective defense, either by settling the debts, or by exercising an objection under article 217 of the Civil Code, with which, among other things, he can also contribute to the financial statements, which have been issued in name of the company (cf. S.t.E. 1775, 359/2018, 2274, 1552/2017, 2267/2016, 3325/2014).
5. Because, in article 26 par. 3 of AN 1846/1951 (Government Gazette A' 179), as this paragraph was valid at the critical time, it was defined that: "Through the regulation the time of payment of the contributions is determined. The person liable to pay contributions must, within thirty days from the appointed time, pay to the I.K.A. the contributions", while, according to article 16 of the Insurance Regulation of the I.K.A. (decision of the Minister of Labor 55575/1479/18.11.1965, Official Gazette B΄ 816/1965): "1. The time of payment of the contributions is defined as the calendar end of the month in which the work or service was provided...". Moreover, in paragraph 7 of article 27 of the same above AN 1846/1951, as it applied after its amendment by paragraph 2 of article 44 of the N.D. 2698/1953 (Government Gazette A΄ 315) and until 23.12.1997, when it was amended again by article 2 par. 8 of Law 2556/1997 (see article 32 of Law 2556/1997, GOVERNMENT A΄ 270) , it was provided that: "The right to collect the contributions expires ten years after the end of the financial year, as they became due. On such statute of limitations, the provisions on short-term statutes of limitations of the Civil Code shall apply by analogy." On the other hand, given that the statute of limitations provisions of the N.D. 496/1974 "On accounting of legal entities of public law" (Government Gazette A' 204) did not apply to I.K.A.-ETAM, because with the article only of the P.D. 437/1977 (Government Gazette Α΄ 134), as amended by the Presidential Decree 305/1985 (Government Gazette A' 113), the insurance organizations, which were under the supervision of the (then) Ministry of Social Services, as was the I.K.A., were exempted from the application of the provisions of the N.D. . 496/1974 (cf. S.t.E. 295/2011, cf. also S.t.E. 942/2014, 411/2010, 2011/2006), for the cases of interruption of the statute of limitations of I.'s monetary claims. K.A. the provisions of the Civil Code (S.t.E. 1717/1994) were applied until 23.12.1997. In particular, in the above Code it is defined, in article 260 that: ""The statute of limitations is interrupted, when the obligee acknowledges the claim in any way", in article 261 that: "The statute of limitations is interrupted by the initiation of the lawsuit. The statute of limitations interrupted in this way begins again from the last procedural act of the parties or the court", in article 264 that: "The statute of limitations is also interrupted by: 1. the delivery of a payment check under an enforceable document. 2. the announcement for verification in bankruptcy. 3. the announcement for ranking in an auction. 4. the submission of an objection to offset the claim" and in article 270 that: "If the statute of limitations was interrupted, the time that has passed until then is not counted and after the interruption has ended, a new statute of limitations begins...". Also, with paragraph 8 of article 2 of the aforementioned Law 2556/1997, paragraph 7 in article 27 of A.N. was replaced. 1846/1951 and paragraph 7a was added to this article, with entry into force from 24.12.1997, as follows: "7. All kinds of financial claims of the I.K.A. derived from contributions, prorated additional fees, surcharges, independent additional fees, bad check fines, other interest fines, administrative execution costs, court costs, etc. ... they expire after a decade ... According to the above, the statute of limitations for contributions, household additional fees, surcharges and independent additional fees begins on the first day of the year following the year in which the insurable work or service was provided, and for fines on unsecured checks, interest , court costs, administrative execution costs and other fines starts from the first day of the following year in which their cash confirmation was made. 7a. The provisions of paragraphs 1 and 4 of article 87 of Law 2362/1995, on the suspension of the statute of limitations on the claims of the State, as well as articles 88 and 89 of the same law, on the suspension of the statute of limitations on the claims of the State and the consequences of the statute of limitations respectively , apply accordingly to the I.K.A. Where in the above provisions the Head of the competent Public Financial Service or the Minister of Finance is mentioned, they mean, respectively, the Director of the Revenue Collection Fund I.K.A. or Cashier Service Manager of a Regional or Local Branch I.K.A. or I.K.A. Governor, from whom the respective responsibilities are exercised". Furthermore, in paragraph 1 of article 88 of the Public Accounting Code in force at the relevant time (C.D.L., Law 2362/1995, Official Gazette A' 247) it was provided that: "The statute of limitations on a monetary claim of the State shall be interrupted by: a. The confiscation of an asset of the debtor or co-debtor or their third guarantor, regardless of whether it is in their hands or in the hands of a third party. b. The issuance of the auction program ... c. The announcement to verify the bankruptcy of either the debtor or a natural or legal person with that co-obligor ... d. The announcement to classify the debtor's property at auction ... e. The announcement to the liquidator of inheritance ... f. The registration of a mortgage or mortgage pre-notification on a property ... g. From the beginning of the administrative (forced) execution according to the Public Revenue Collection Code until the list of creditors becomes irrevocable, every act of execution and every procedural act regarding the list of the parties or the court ... 4. With the subject to the provisions of this article, according to the general provisions, the grounds for interrupting the statute of limitations also apply to claims of the State", while in paragraph 1 of article 107 of the same law it was defined that: "The provisions of this law on statute of limitations apply to claims arising after its entry into force. However, with regard to the suspension and interruption of the statute of limitations, the relevant provisions herein shall also be applied to claims that have arisen before its entry into force, if the events causing the suspension or interruption have taken place after its entry into force". Finally, with article 15 par. 2 of Law 2972/2001 (Government Gazette A' 291), which again amended the above provisions, it was defined that: "The right of the I.K.A., for the certification in broad meaning of all his financial claims ... is subject to a ten-year statute of limitations that begins on the first day of the year following the one in which the insurable work or service was provided ... The right of the I.K.A. for the collection of all monetary claims of ... is time-barred after ten years from the end of the financial year in which it was confirmed in the narrow sense (cash) ... The provisions of this paragraph apply to monetary claims of salary periods after the implementation of the institution of the A.P.D. . For monetary claims of salary periods before the implementation of the A.P.D., the provisions of paragraph 6 of article 27 of the a.n. 1846/1951, as replaced by article 2 paragraph 8 of law 2556/1997 and renumbered by paragraph 2 of article 56 of law 2676/1999".
6. Because, from the above provisions, it follows that the right to certify and collect the financial claims of I.K.A.-ETAM. from contributions and related increments for periods of employment that go back to a time prior to the start of the application of the A.P.D., an institution introduced by Law 2972/2001 (ie before 01.01.2002, according to Law 21 /2728/31.12.2001 decision of the Deputy Minister of Labor and Social Insurance-Government Gazette B΄ 1793), is time-barred after ten years have passed from the first day of the year following the year in which the insurable work was provided. This, because for these periods the previous legal regime applies, as expressly defined in the individual provisions of article 15 par. 2 last paragraph of Law 2972/2001 and deduced from the introductory report of this law [see on article 11, the regulations of which (i.e. the amendments it brought about to paragraph 8a of article 26 of AN 1846/1951) were considered necessary on the one hand due to the new regulations of article 10 par. 1 of the same law, on the other hand due to the changes brought about by article 15 par. 2 of this law to the statute of limitations of the right of I.K.A.-ETAM. to collect his financial claims (cf. S.t.E. 3486/2011)]. Furthermore, it is concluded that valid notification or full knowledge of the relevant imputation act must be given within the time of limitation, otherwise the right of the I.K.A. for the imposition of contributions is time-barred (cf. S.t.E. 1717/1994). Finally, with paragraph 1 of article 95 of Law 4387/2016 (Government Gazette A΄ 85/12.05.2016), it was defined that: "From the entry into force of this, the requirements of the Social Security Agencies that are part of the E.F. K.A. from unpaid insurance contributions are subject to a twenty-year statute of limitations, starting from the first day of the following year in which the insurable work or service was provided. This regulation does not apply to requirements that have already expired, according to the provisions in force at the time of entry into force of this provision. The statute of limitations for claims that have arisen before the entry into force of this provision but have not been subject to statute of limitations in the sense of the previous paragraph, is defined as twenty years and begins on the first day of the following year in which the insurable work or service was provided", according to and according to article 122 of the same law, its validity starts from its publication in the Official Gazette, which took place on 12.05.2016.
7. Because, in article 27 of the Insurance Regulation of the I.K.A. it is defined that: "1. The acts of imposing contributions and additional fees are served by handing over these documents to the employer under the supervision of an employee of the Foundation... 2. ... 4. In the event of dissolution of the enterprise or change of the place of establishment of the enterprise or the office or of the employer's residence, if the place of the employer's new establishment or residence is unknown to the service of the Head or Deputy of the I.K.A. ... the practice of imposing contributions or an additional fee is served to the priest of the parish of the employer's last establishment or residence ... The service may be done through the mayor or president of the Community of the region, where the employment took place, who is pasted on the notice board for 3 days a copy of the enforcement act and draws up a relevant record of wall sticking. 5. … 6. The service is made upon a receipt, drawn up on the served deed and the copies thereof remaining in the hands of the Foundation, without fail, as under penalty of nullity of the service, the year, month and day of service and the name of the person, to whom the practice was delivered. If this person declares that he is unaware of or is unable to sign or if he refuses to sign or if the granted deed is walled up according to par. 3 hereof, mention is made in the deed as well as of his full name according to par. 3 of the present person who refused the receiving ...". In the sense of the above provisions, in order for the notification to be legal through the process of unknown residence, it must be confirmed by the bailiff or the body responsible for carrying out the service, that every effort has been made to find the person the notification that he was not finally found and that, therefore, he is indeed of unknown residence (cf. S.t.E. 539/2019, 2727/1999 with reference to Olom. S.t.E. 536/1990, etc. a.).
8. Because, as decided by the 1833/2021 decision of the Plenary of the Council of State, following the introduction of the case in the procedure of article 1 par. 1 of Law 3900/2010, the provision of paragraph 1 of article 95 of Law . institutions and this was set at twenty years, it is contrary to the principle of legal certainty and to the principle enshrined in article 25 par.1 sec. d' of the Constitution principle of proportionality, since a twenty-year statute of limitations does not constitute a reasonable length of the relevant period, which is required to be relatively short. Following this, it was decided that for the contributions of all the members of the E.F.K.A. entities, the ten-year limitation rule applies, a period of time that was considered reasonable and regulated, according to the previous law, the claims for the payment of insurance contributions of the I.K.A.-ETAM. (article 27 par. 6 of Law 1846/1951, as finally replaced by article 15 par. 2 of Law 2972/2001).
9. Because, in the present case, the following emerges from the evidence of the case file: The objector was the CEO of the anonymous company with the name “….” from 01.07.1996 to 30.06.2001, as he himself admits and it is not disputed as Chairman of its Board of Directors from 30.06.2001 to 31.07.2003, replaced by ……. The company in question, which was established in 1994 with headquarters in Thessaloniki, had as its purpose … Thessaloniki, according to what is written on it, the objector, in his capacity as the former Managing Director of the aforementioned company, was called upon to settle or pay off a debt of the total amount of 106,344.09 euros, arising from the charge against the overdue insurance contributions. These contributions were attributed, among others, with the 403/20.04.2006 Deed of Imposition of Contributions (P.E.E.), amounting to 1,346.92 euros, referring to the time period 08/1997-04/1998, on 444/20.04. 2006 Deed of Imposition of Additional Contributions (P.E.P.E.E.), in the amount of 1,924.17 euros, referring to this time period, and the 97/2006 Deed of Imposition of Additional Fees (D.E.P.T.) , in the amount of 187.14 euros, with a debt period of 10/2002, promissory notes issued following a complaint by…… for his insurance settlement during the above period 08.1997/04.1998. In particular, initially the complaint in question was rejected as overdue by decision 7670/26.08.2005 of the Director of the I.K.A.-ETAM Branch. Axios Gate of Thessaloniki, against which the complainant filed an objection. With the 4/syn1/24.01.2006 decision of the relevant T.D.E. this objection was accepted and the above 444/20.04.2006 P.E.E. were issued. and 403/20.04.2006 P.E.P.E.E., while the employer company's objection against them was rejected by the 544/Syn.66/23.06.2008 decision of the T.D.E. of the above Branch. Subsequently, the debts in question were cash certified with cash certification documents 921/16.05.2006, 913/16.05.2006 and 912/16.05.2006, respectively. On the other hand, among the elements of the administrative file there is the 24.10.2007 walling record of the employee of the Local Branch of I.K.A. Pylis Axios, which has the following content: "Today on 24.10.2007 I went to the company…….. to serve the number 444/06 P.E.E. and 403/06 P.E.P.E.E. and because the employer could not be found, I stuck it on the wall of our office's special sign, in accordance with the provisions of article 27 of the I.K.A. Insurance Regulation." Already, with the objection in question, as developed through the memorandum filed on 20.05.2021, the objector requested the annulment on the one hand of the 7808/29.11.2018 individual notice, on the other hand of its contents 921/16.05.2006, 913 /16.05.2006 and 912/16.05.2006 of cash confirmation acts. On the contrary, with his memorandum filed on 24.05.2021, the defendant requested the rejection of the opposition in question.
10. Because, in particular, with the objection in question, the objector argued, among other things, that the right of the defendant to collect the legal claims was already time-barred on 31.12.2017, as from the end of the financial year, within after which these were confirmed (2006), a decade had passed, which began on 01.01.2007. Furthermore, he argued that, in this case, article 95 of Law 4387/2016 cannot be applied as an object of the constitutional principles of legal certainty and proportionality. On the contrary, the defendant argued through the memorandum that the statute of limitations of his right to collect legal debts was interrupted by the re-notification of the deeds in 2007 and 2015, as well as by the issuance of seizure orders in the hands of a third party in 2017, with the result it should start anew, while in this regard the walling practice of 24.10.2007 was invoked.
11. Because, with the 3354/2021 decision of the Court, it was definitively decided that the right of the I.K.A. to certify and collect its monetary claims from the judicial contributions and the additional fees that go back to the period 08/1997-04 /1998, i.e. in a period before the implementation of the A.P.D. (01.01.2002), is time-barred, with regard in particular to the contributions for the time period 08/1997-12/1997, after the completion of ten years from the end of the financial year, as such they became payable (as defined by the provision of article 27 par. 7 of A.N. 1846/1951, before its amendment by article 2 par. 8 of Law 2556/1997), and, regarding the contributions for the period 12/1997-04/1998 (in accordance with its provision as above article 27 par. 7 of AN 1846/1951, after its amendment by article 2 par. 8 of Law 2556/1997), after the completion of ten years, which begins on the first day of the following year from that , within which the insurable work was provided. Also, according to the proportionally applicable provisions of the A.K. and of K.D.L., the statute of limitations for the claims of I.K.A. against the employer for the payment of the due contributions for the employees employed by him is interrupted by the execution of any act of execution according to the K.ED.E., among which the act of cash confirmation. Consequently, the statute of limitations of the defendant's right to collect the legal debts, which began for the above periods on 01.01.1998 and 01.01.1999, respectively, was interrupted on 16.05.2006, when these debts were confirmed in cash with the 921/16.05.2006, 913/16.05.2006 and 912/16.05.2006 acts of cash confirmation. Furthermore, from the data in the case file, there is no reason for suspending or interrupting the aforementioned statute of limitations, according to the aforementioned provisions of the A.K. and of the K.D.L., from 16.05.2006, i.e. from the issuance of the above cash confirmation documents, when the statute of limitations began again (cf. S.t.E. 313/2016, 3494/2014, 1508/2002) until the issuance, on 29.11.2018, of the challenged individual notice, by which the objector became the debtor of the judicial debt. In particular, the statute of limitations was not interrupted by the notification of 444/20.04.2006 P.E.E. and 403/20.04.2006 P.E.P.E.E. to the debtor company as of unknown residence, because it was not legal, as the enforcement officer does not confirm that every effort was made to find the employing company, that it was not finally found and that, therefore, it is indeed of unknown residence, while in the administrative file there is no other element related to the notification of said acts. Given these facts, the statute of limitations of the defendant's right to collect legal debts, which had been interrupted on 16.05.2006 with the issuance of the above-mentioned acts of cash confirmation, began anew on 17.05.2006 (see article 60 par. 1 of the Civil Code), would expire on 17.05.2016, and, therefore, was covered by the regulation of article 95 par. 1 of Law 4387/2016 on the extension of the statute of limitations to twenty years. Furthermore, the Court, with its aforementioned decision, taking into account the issue of agreement with the Constitution of the provisions of article 95 of Law 4387/2016, in part provide for the doubling from ten (10) to twenty (20) ) years of the statute of limitations for the requirements of the Social Security bodies that are included in the E.F.K.A., therefore also of the I.K.A.-ETAM. (see Law 4387/2016, Official Gazette A' 85), from unpaid insurance contributions, had already been subject to judgment before the Council of State, suspended the progress of the trial until the publication of the Council of State's decision.
12. Because, according to what was accepted by the 1833/2021 decision of the Council of State and set out above in paragraph 8, yes the case under consideration would be covered by the regulation of article 95 par. 1 of Law 4387/2016, except , however, as stated, this regulation was deemed unconstitutional and is therefore inapplicable. Therefore, at the time of issuance of the 7808/29.11.2018 individual notice, the right of the defendant to collect the legal debts was time-barred, as the statute of limitations expired on 17.05.2016, according to what was mentioned in the previous paragraph, according to the validly presented by the rebuttal reason, rejected as unfounded those put forward by the defendant to the contrary.
13. Because, the objector, further, asserts that the challenged individual notification does not indicate the type and cause of the debt, it also incorrectly indicates as the period of debt of PEE/X/444/2006 and PPEEE/X/403/2006 the period of the 8th /1997-5th/1998, instead of the correct 8th/1997-4th/1998, as he also incorrectly states his position in the management of the company during the period from 30-10-2001 to 25-7-2003 (Chairman and CEO ) while he was only President. Also, the contested individual notification does not clearly state the percentage of surcharges and other charges that are added to the initially charged amount, in order to make it possible to check the correctness of their calculation. The relevant claim must also be rejected as unfounded, because the challenged individual notification contains all the elements provided for by law, and, among others, in particular the cash certificate acts, the legal securities, the type and amount of the insurance contributions due, the relevant time period related to the debts, therefore, for each debt, its type, cause and amount are stated, without requiring other elements to determine the relevant debts by law, while the capacity in which the objector is called upon to pay the above debts, rejecting as unfounded the arguments to the contrary put forward by the objector. This, regardless of the fact that, in any case, the objector does not claim that any omissions to report the above-mentioned elements caused him irreparable damage, which cannot be remedied in any other way, except by declaring the contested acts null and void, such as require articles 75 par. 1 and 75A of the K.E.D.E. (cf. StE 2490/2008, 3214/1999 7m., 2794/1999). On the other hand, both against the individual notification and against the acts of cash confirmation, the contested objection was filed, which is being examined on its merits.
14. Because, finally, the objector claims that, in this case, his right to a prior hearing was violated. This claim must be rejected as unfounded, since, as a matter of fact, administrative enforcement acts are issued only on the basis of establishing the existence of demandable and overdue debts, i.e. the presence of objective data, and, therefore, no prior hearing was necessary of (StE 359/2018, 29/2013, 1705/2008).
15. Because, as a result, the contested objection must be partially accepted and the challenged cash receipts must be canceled under items 921/16.05.2006, 913/16.05.2006 and 912/16.05.2006, as far as they concern the objectors, as well as correspondingly in this part the challenged individual notification. Finally, it must be attributed to the outstanding part of the paid tax amounting to seventy (70) euros and forfeit the remaining part of it amounting to thirty (30) euros in favor of the Greek State (article 277 par. 9 section c' of the Civil Code .) and to offset the legal costs of the parties, due to their partial victory and partial defeat (article 275 par. 1 of the Civil Code).
BECAUSE OF THIS
The opposition is partially upheld.
Cancels the cash certificates of the defendant under items: 921/16.05.2006, 913/16.05.2006 and 912/16.05.2006, in the part concerning the objector, as well as in this part and 7808/29.11.2018 respectively individual notification of overdue debts of the Director of the Regional Center for the Collection of Insurance Contributions (K.E.A.O.) of Thessaloniki.
It rejects the rest of the objection.
It orders the return to the objector of the part of the paid tax of seventy (70) euros and the forfeiture of the remaining amount of thirty (30) euros in favor of the Greek State.
Set off legal costs between the parties.
The decision was published in Thessaloniki at an extraordinary public meeting in the audience of this Court on 5-27-2022.
THE JUDGE THE SECRETARY
Thomas Steph. Summer
MDE lawyer
Min. Ph.D. AUTH
English 
Greek 
French 
Chinese 
German