Nikos Vertis: Why does Areios Pagos send the favorite singer to the bench? – 2024-03-26 07:37:09

Goes on the legal dispute of Nikos Vertis with his friend and former accountant Nikos Polatidis.

With the specific decision of the Supreme Court, which is brought to the public by newsit.gr, the trial is being held once more at the Court of Appeal, following the lawsuit filed by the former accountant once morest the well-known singer Nikos Vertis and it concerns debts incurred by the company managed by Nikos Vertis, but appeared under the name of Nikos Polatidis.

The trial was set for April 26 and the rationale of the Supreme Court’s decision favors the side of the former accountant.

The Supreme Court, by its decision, accepted the appeal brought by the former financial director and right-hand man of the popular artist Nikos Polatidis, who was found to owe the Greek government 231,574 euros as the manager of a company that organized concerts of Nikos Vertis in 2013 and 2014. According to the Areopagite judges Polatidis together with another person were the so-called “frontmen” at the same time that the real owner of the tavern was the popular artist.

The reasoning behind the decision of the Supreme Court

The excerpt from the Supreme Court that signals the new developments in the dispute between the two sides states the following:

“The above set forth in the lawsuit meet the conditions for the application of the aforementioned provisions of substantive law, as they establish the illegal behavior of the appellant (s.s. Nikos Vertis), his culpability, the positive damage of the appellant (Nikos Polatidis), the existence of a causal connection between the culpable (fraudulent) conduct of the appellant and the damage caused to the appellant.

Therefore, the Court of Appeal, which accepted the appellant’s appeal with the challenged decision, annulled the decision of the first-instance court which had partially accepted the action on its merits and dismissed the action as illegal, violated the aforementioned substantive provisions of law and therefore the above grounds of appeal must be accepted as well-founded”.