August 2025 – Issuance of decision no 1034/2025 of Thessaloniki Court of Appeal

Final Appellate Judgment regarding rejection of a Lawsuit Seeking €1,800,000 from a Commercial Distribution Agreement

A lawsuit was filed against our client company, a subsidiary of a multinational corporation operating in the broader field of supplying products and providing services related to medical tools, by its counterparty. More specifically, the two companies had entered into a commercial distribution agreement under which our client was obliged to supply the distributor with specific products for endoscopic surgery and arthroscopic procedures.

The distributor, citing a breach of contractual obligations related to delayed order fulfillment, terminated the distribution agreement, invited our client to collect unsold goods and equipment, and filed a lawsuit seeking a cumulative compensation of €1,800,000 for direct damages, lost profits, and moral damages. At the first instance, the lawsuit was dismissed by virtue of the decision no. 6924/2024 of the Multi-Member Court of First Instance of Thessaloniki, following our firm’s successful handling of the case (see more here).

The distributor/plaintiff proceeded to file an appeal based on the erroneous assessment of the evidence regarding the financial damages it claimed to have suffered. It attempted to supplement its appeal by timely filing additional grounds for appeal, complaining about the first-instance court’s incorrect judgment regarding the compensation for emotional distress it was seeking.

After appropriate support of the case at the second instance, the Court dismissed the appeal and the additional grounds for appeal of the distributor/plaintiff (and now appellant).

Initially, as was argued and accepted, it was impermissible for the appellant to challenge the part of the first-instance decision concerning moral damages for the first time with additional grounds for appeal. This is because moral damages constitute a separate, independent part of the first instance judgement, not in bind with the part concerning the claim for compensation for financial damages. It is an independent request for judicial protection, which creates a separate subject of the lawsuit (within the same dispute) and lis pendens and for which (request) a separate provision of the decision was issued at the first instance. That is, the appellant should have taken care to challenge the relevant part of the firs instance judgement with its appeal from the outset. This omission resulted in the finality of the relevant part and, consequently, the inadmissibility of challenging it for the first time with additional grounds for appeal.

The Court of Appeal of Thessaloniki also dismissed the arguments put forth by the distributor regarding its financial damages from direct losses and lost profits, upholding the judgment of the Court of First Instance. More specifically, regarding the claim for compensation for lost profits, accepting the arguments duly put forward by us, it admitted the complete absence of a causal link between the actions of the supplier company/our client and the damages claimed by the distributor. This is because no delay in the delivery of the ordered products was proven.

As for the claim for compensation for direct damages (which, according to the arguments of the plaintiff and now appellant, consisted of the value of machinery it had procured and operated with consumables it ordered from our client/defendant), it was also deemed unfounded because even if an uncontractual behavior by the supplier company was assumed (i.e., delayed delivery of consumables), the procurement of the machinery had taken place at a time prior to the start of the contractual relationship, from a different legal entity (namely, the supplier’s foreign parent company). Therefore, the hidden request of the plaintiff/appellant for piercing the corporate veil of the two companies, parent and subsidiary, which would have resulted in the subsidiary’s co-liability for the parent’s contractual obligations, was also dismissed at the second instance.

Consequently, the lawsuit was completely dismissed.