The major shareholder and CEO of the famous Belgian chocolate production Leonidas He lived with him for ten years then «phototechne» her partner, who she financially manned with EUR 2.5 million and 9 real estate. He currently has the well-known company FOSS S.A. in the area of building lighting design, interiors etc.
Upon termination of their free partnership, which began in 1992 and ended in 2002, she requested that the money and property she had given her be reimbursed by citing the provisions on unjustified enrichment (Article 904 of the Civil Code). That is, that she became richer than her property without legal cause, causing her parallel property damage. But he refused to return her benefits, so the case was brought to court. A decision was now given irrevocable by the Artio IceWhich the plaintiff lost.
Leonidas chocolatemaking was founded in 1913 in Belgium by a Greek-born businessman born in 1876 in the Cappadocia region of Asia Minor. In 1922 his nephew moved to Belgium and engaged in chocolatemaking, while in 1937 he registered the company's mark in Brussels. After his death, in 1970, the company's reins were taken over by the next generation of the family and then the current major shareholder. Today chocolatemaking has more than 1,200 selling points in 40 countries. Only in Belgium and Luxembourg has 450 stores and 290 in France.
The path of cohabitation
According to the Areopagic decision, the plaintiff's acquaintance with her partner took place in 1992, when she commissioned the study and installation of lighting at her home in Artemis (Loutsa). Then it was him. «photoartist» And he had a small personal company.
They had a love affair. Among them «Close personal ties of love and mutual trust developed, had developed a common social life and towards third parties appeared as a couple with a permanent and stable relationship».
The couple lived in a single free union in the 1992s-2002s, so the latter «Despite his so far assurances that he wishes to marry her he interrupted their relationship».
In fact, during the last three years of their cohabitation they had an affair with another woman, as mentioned in the court order. According to the judges, «In the context of their free partnership, during which a relationship of trust had been created between them, she, having the assurance that in the future they will enter into marriage and, in any case, because of the permanence of their relationship, made a multitude of financial benefits to him, who at the beginning of their acquaintance had no financial liquidity or real estate.». From this relationship, he «increased its personal property and assets by EUR 2,515,595, which paid him credit on individual or joint accounts at regular intervals», but also «acquisition and maintenance of full ownership, right and possession of 9 real estate».
A year after their relationship began, in 1993, she began to give him money, through cheques, by transferring from Brussels bank to a bank in Athens, after the conversion from the Belgian franc (BEF) to the Greek currency was first made. He also deposited amounts for an increase in his company's share capital, but also for the costs of the capital increase.
As for the 9 properties purchased, one was in Kifisia and the other 8 were shops at the Eurotech shopping center in Thermi Kalamaria. Most of the stores were small-scale, except for one which was 163 sq mi, but all had car parking spaces.
Moreover, during their relationship she helped him create FOSS S.A., with the aim of lighting indoors and outdoors. At first she held 51% of the shares herself, but in 1996 she left by transferring its shares to him.
The Athens Court of Appeal lost the case, as it was deemed to have provided the amount of money at stake and the properties «of freedom, of charisma, with the intention of donation, without aiming at a particular asset in return, its future financial security or future marriage or even the permanence of free cohabitation, which she did not take for granted».
In fact, judges rely on statements from another court dispute she had with her former partner, according to which:
■ He had refused his proposals for marriage, as he had failed in 2 marriages, had 3 children and had no reason to marry.
■ He did not want to marry him because he did not want to deprive him of the possibility of making offspring and why he believed that marriage would not last.
The letter that overturned the refund
The court took into account the letter he had sent to him (5/11/2002) shortly after their separation, in which «It seems clear that he did not wish marriage and that he did not take for granted the permanence of their relationship». In that letter, according to the Judges, «she clearly disconnects her financial benefits to him by the possibility of future marriage or permanence of their relationship». He writes features to him: «I know you haven’t loved me in three years. Not only because you told me yesterday morning before I left, but because I was feeling it more and more emotionally, until there was a physical reaction for 15 days to me. I know you'll consider your life and your happiness an obstacle. I know what I did so you wouldn't need me and that I could believe in you, and I want you to know that I did it consciously.
I originally did the job. Then, when your emotional attraction occurred from another woman 3 summers ago (in 8 years of our relationship), I also made the effort not to need cash flow.
Nevertheless, perhaps not to hurt me immediately, perhaps because you were still swinging from insecurity, from indecision, perhaps because you hadn't tried anything in practice to make sure it didn't hurt... (only you and God know) you sat with me for another two years.».
At another point in the same letter he writes: «If we were married when you asked me at the beginning of our relationship, what would happen today? You would either ask for a divorce (most likely) or cheat on me. You know very well that I did everything and that I gave you everything so that I wouldn't commit you and that you could leave anytime you wanted and that's what I wanted and as I knew it.».
However, it is characteristic that she paid him 1.526.045,49 EUR 10/9/2001 «Just before the breakup and while already aware of his attraction from another woman».
Unfair enrichment
Οι απαιτήσεις της όμως χάθηκαν στα νομικά γρανάζια της ερμηνείας του νομικού όρου του αδικαιολόγητου πλουτισμού, αφού πρώτα η ίδια με ενέργειές της (καταθέσεις, επιστολή κ.λπ.) εξασθένησε την υπερασπιστική της γραμμή.
Σύμφωνα με το σκεπτικό της εφετειακής απόφασης, «αξιώσεις εκ του αδικαιολόγητου πλουτισμού μπορούν να προκύψουν σε περίπτωση ανατροπής του συνδέσμου εμπιστοσύνης που δημιουργήθηκε στα πλαίσια της ελεύθερης συμβίωσης των συντρόφων, είτε αυτός είχε στηριχθεί στην προοπτική γάμου ή έστω στην προοπτική μονιμότητας της σχέσης (αιτία λήξασα), είτε στην πεποίθηση μελλοντικής οικονομικής αποκατάστασης της παρέχουσας (αιτία μη επακολουθήσασα)».
Και οι συνθήκες αυτές, προσέθεσαν οι εφέτες, «δεν συντρέχουν στην ένδικη υπόθεση», επομένως, το πρωτοβάθμιο δικαστήριο, που απέρριψε την αγωγή της ως αβάσιμη, δεν έσφαλε. Μετά την απορριπτική απόφαση του Εφετείου, η ίδια προσέφυγε στον Αρειο Πάγο ζητώντας να αναιρεθεί η εφετειακή απόφαση λόγω ανεπαρκούς και πλημμελούς αιτιολογίας και εσφαλμένης ερμηνείας του άρθρου 904 του Α.Κ.
Απόρριψη λόγω αοριστίας
Το Α2 Πολιτικό Τμήμα του Αρείου Πάγου απέρριψε την αίτηση αναίρεσης ως απαράδεκτη λόγω αοριστίας. Οι αρεοπαγίτες έκριναν ότι «στο πλαίσιο της απλής ελεύθερης ενώσεώς της (χωρίς σύμφωνο) με τον σύντροφό της προέβη στις ένδικες ευθείες περιουσιακές επιδόσεις προς αυτόν, χωρίς να αποβλέπει ή να προσδοκά με τις επιδόσεις αυτές στην παροχή συγκεκριμένου και δη οριστικού περιουσιακού ανταλλάγματος με την οικονομική εξασφάλισή της για το μέλλον από τον οικονομικώς αδύναμο αναιρεσίβλητο ή επελεύσεως γεγονότος με την προσδοκία μελλοντικής τελέσεως γάμου με αυτόν, ή στην επίτευξη ορισμένου υφιστάμενου σκοπού -έστω και σιωπηρώς συμφωνημένου μεταξύ τους- με τη συνέχιση ή διατήρηση σε ισχύ της συμβιώσεώς τους, σε συνδυασμό προς τις συγκεκριμένες περιστάσεις και τις συνθήκες που δημιουργήθηκαν στο πλαίσιο της ένωσης».
«Ελεύθερη βούληση»
Οι προϋποθέσεις αυτές, συνεχίζουν οι αρεοπαγίτες, «δικαιολογούν τη μη εφαρμογή των διατάξεων περί αδικαιολόγητου πλουτισμού, με συνέπεια οι περιουσιακές επιδόσεις που έγιναν κατά τη διάρκεια της συμβιώσεώς τους, αν και αφορούν σε παροχές περιουσιακών στοιχείων μεγάλης αξίας, οι οποίες ευλόγως προϋποθέτουν και έχουν ως βάση και “θεμέλιο” τη σχέση συμβιώσεως των ατόμων, να μην στερείται νόμιμης αιτίας και έτσι να παρίσταται δικαιολογημένος ο πλουτισμός του με την επαύξηση της ατομικής του περιουσίας και του ενεργητικού της, αφού οι επιδόσεις αυτές βασίζονταν σε ισχυρή και ελεύθερη βούλησή της να προβεί εν γνώσει της, άμεσα, στις ένδικες περιουσιακές επιδόσεις προς τον σύντροφό της από ελευθεριότητα, από χαριστική αιτία και με πρόθεση δωρεάς, η οποία, όμως, χωρίς εξάρτηση των περιουσιακών αυτών επιδόσεων από την επιδίωξη ορισμένου σκοπού για το μέλλον ή από την προσδοκία για συνέχιση ή διατήρηση σε ισχύ της συμβιώσεως, δεν μπορεί να ανατραπεί με μόνη τη λύση της ένωσης ώστε αυτές να μπορούν να αναζητηθούν μετά τη λήξη της, ούτε αίρει τη δικαιολογητική βάση της διατηρήσεως των εν λόγω παροχών στην περιουσία του για αιτία λήξασα».
Source
