Recently, Decision No. 402/2026 of the Single-Member Court of First Instance of Arta, sitting under the special procedure for property disputes, was published. By that decision, following the acceptance of the relevant opposition under Article 933 of the Greek Code of Civil Procedure, as well as the additional grounds thereof, the Court annulled the seizure imposed against our clients over two horizontal ownership units, as well as the preceding order for payment.
The noteworthy aspect of this case lies in the Court’s acceptance of the ground raised concerning the abusive exercise of a right under Article 281 of the Greek Civil Code. In particular, the enforcing receivables management company proceeded with acts of compulsory enforcement, despite the fact that an active debt settlement arrangement was in force, with which our clients had been consistently complying.
As we argued in the pleading setting out the additional grounds of opposition, the applicants had entered into an out-of-court debt settlement agreement as early as June 2024 and had been duly paying the agreed instalments. The sudden and unannounced initiation of enforcement proceedings, namely the seizure of two apartments, was held by the Court to be contrary to the principles of good faith, since the creditor’s prior conduct had created in the alleged debtors the reasonable belief that no enforcement measures would be taken for as long as the settlement arrangement was being duly serviced.
According to the characteristic findings of Decision No. 402/2026 of the Single-Member Court of First Instance of Arta, which accepted the following:
“[…] In view of the above, the respondent, by serving the disputed order for payment and imposing compulsory seizure on the aforementioned immovable properties of the applicants/applicants raising additional grounds of opposition, although it was proven that an active settlement agreement concerning the disputed debt had been in place since June 2024 and was being duly serviced, acted abusively, because its prior conduct, namely the settlement of the debt, created in the applicants/applicants raising additional grounds of opposition the reasonable belief that it would not proceed, at that specific point in time, with compulsory seizure against them […] Therefore, the additional ground of opposition under consideration must be accepted as well-founded on the merits, and the disputed order for enforcement and the disputed compulsory seizure report must be annulled.”
For related issues concerning compulsory enforcement, debtor defence, and the abusive initiation of enforcement acts despite the existence of a debt settlement procedure or agreement, see also our articles “Annulment of Seizure due to Abuse of Right”, “Opposition against Seizure and Auction” and “Submission of an Application under the Out-of-Court Debt Settlement Mechanism and the Fate of Enforcement Proceedings through Case-Law Examples”.
