The suspension of water, electricity, and telephone services due to non-payment of excessive bills, which are not the fault of the consumer, constitutes an abuse and is contrary to good faith, according to a court ruling.
The case in question involved the suspension of water supply by EYDAP (Athens Water Supply and Sewerage Company) due to unpaid bills resulting from a water leak that caused the meter to spike abnormally.
The Athens Court of First Instance (in a precautionary measures procedure) ruled that cutting off the water supply for outstanding bills exceeds the bounds of good faith and constitutes an abusive exercise of rights. Based on this reasoning, the court prohibited the suspension of water supply to an apartment until a final decision is issued on the lawsuit filed by the consumers.
The ruling also applies to similar cases of electricity and telephone service disconnections by providers due to financial disputes.
In one instance, two tenants in an Athens apartment received an EYDAP bill for €11,402, reflecting a consumption of 1,795 cubic meters of water.
For context, the average monthly water consumption in apartments is about 13 cubic meters. Consequently, the average quarterly consumption, when EYDAP bills are issued, is around 39 cubic meters, though this can increase for larger families or those with small children.
After the initial shock, the apartment owner visited EYDAP’s offices to complain about the excessive water bill. The staff advised her to repair a hidden leak outside the water meter. With no other option, she hired a plumber to fix the problem.
Request for Reduction
She then returned to the water company, requesting a reduction in the bill, which was accepted, lowering the amount from €11,402 to €3,659.78. However, she was still unable to pay and submitted another request for a further reduction.
EYDAP offered a better deal, reducing the debt to €2,234.87, plus an additional €102.36. The company warned that if the €2,337.23 was not paid, the water supply would be cut off. Despite repairing the leak at her own expense, a new inflated bill arrived, showing a water consumption of 430 cubic meters and a charge of €2,000. Another request for a reduction was made, and the bill was lowered to €787.29.
Naturally, this left them in a financial bind, unable to pay the exorbitant EYDAP bills due to the leaks. At the same time, they feared the water supply would be cut off. They had no choice but to seek legal recourse. The apartment owner and the two tenants filed for a precautionary measure with the Athens Court of First Instance, requesting that EYDAP not proceed with the water supply disconnection.
They argued that there was a substantial risk that EYDAP would cut off the water supply due to the unpaid debts.
If the water supply were indeed cut off, the owner argued, it would make the apartment uninhabitable and cause her to lose her only source of income.
Thus, all three petitioned for a temporary arrangement until a ruling is made on their main lawsuit, specifically requesting the temporary continuation of water supply to the apartment.
The Court of First Instance, citing provisions of the Civil Code and the Code of Civil Procedure, as well as other court rulings on the same issue (case law), noted that in cases where temporary suspension of services like electricity or water is at stake, a precautionary measures ruling can be issued to address the matter.
The court decision emphasized: “In the case of supply contracts, if the object of the precautionary measures is the temporary prohibition of public utility services (e.g., electricity, water, etc.), then a request for a temporary prohibition of service suspension can be legitimately made within the framework of temporary arrangements.”
Precautionary Measures
The court also noted that precautionary measures could be taken to prevent irreversible harm to the consumer of a public utility service.
Furthermore, the court ruled that trial courts could issue precautionary measures to prevent the creation of irrevocable situations.
The ruling also highlighted that “in cases where the provider of public utility services holds a dominant or universal market position, the threat of service suspension due to non-payment of its financial claims exceeds the bounds of good faith and constitutes an abusive exercise of rights.”
Finally, the Athens Court of First Instance ruled that precautionary measures were necessary, and thus the request by the apartment owner and the two tenants was granted.
