Decision No. 76/2026 of the Single-Member Court of First Instance of Athens (Non-Contentious Jurisdiction Procedure – Small-Object Bankruptcies) was issued, by which an appeal lodged by e-EFKA against the discharge of an individual debtor from his debts towards the above social security institution was dismissed.
In the case at hand, the individual had previously been declared bankrupt following the filing of a relevant petition and the issuance of Decision No. 63/2022 of the Athens Magistrates’ Court, in respect of total debts amounting to EUR 11,892,979.56. Among those debts, an amount of EUR 158,465.49 corresponded to debts towards the above institution, which, during the bankruptcy proceedings, was notified/registered for total claims of EUR 235,940.77. Subsequently, e-EFKA filed an appeal against the debtor’s discharge, requesting that the inability for the automatic discharge of the above debtor under Article 192 of Law 4738/2020 be acknowledged with respect to debts owed to the said institution, on the grounds of: (a) the alleged unconstitutionality of the provisions of Law 4738/2020 that provide for the discharge of a debtor from social security contributions, and (b) the debtor’s fraudulent entry into a state of inability to pay.
As has been held by Greek courts, certain conduct on the part of the debtor may indeed deprive him of the possibility of discharge from his debts, as provided for in Law 4738/2020, even after being declared bankrupt. We have outlined such conduct in a recent article of ours (see here).
However, in the present case the Court dismissed e-EFKA’s appeal, holding that “From none of the evidence submitted and relied upon by the appellant is it proven that the alleged inability to pay, into which the applicant actually fell from the year 2010, prior to the cessation of operation of his sole proprietorship, is due to any fraudulent act alleged by the appellant. Specifically, it was not proven that the debtor, through fraudulent acts, created or increased his debts by borrowing amounts he could not repay […]. It was not proven that, prior to actually becoming unable to pay, he engaged in fraudulent acts detrimental to his assets (fraudulent mismanagement, gratuitous transactions, gifts, wasteful and luxurious living beyond his means), nor that he reduced his assets up to the filing of the petition to be declared bankrupt. The delay he displayed in filing the bankruptcy petition, on the one hand, is unrelated to the factual event of his becoming unable to pay, and on the other hand, it was not proven that such delay was due to bad faith and fraudulent conduct for his benefit and to the detriment of his creditors.”
