March 2025

Decision of the Single-Member Court of First Instance of Athens on Annulment of Seizure Due to Filing of Application with the Out-of-Court Mechanism

The recent Decision No. 741/2025 of the Single-Member Court of First Instance of Athens was published, accepting our client’s opposition (“ανακοπή”) and annulling the forced seizure report of his real property.

More specifically, an enforced seizure had been imposed on our client’s primary residence, under which a foreclosure auction was scheduled for May 2024. In order to annul the enforced seizure, our client timely filed the legal remedy of opposition pursuant to Article 933 of the Greek Code of Civil Procedure, along with an additional pleading stating supplementary grounds of opposition. At the same time, the client also submitted an application to settle the disputed debt through the out-of-court mechanism platform, which was finalized in January 2024—four months before the scheduled auction.

The aforementioned decision annulled the contested forced-seizure report of real property, accepting the following reasoning (excerpt):

“In her eleventh supplementary ground of opposition, the opposing party states that she has applied for inclusion under the provisions of Law 4738/2020, in particular Articles 5 to 30 (out-of-court debt settlement mechanism), which takes place through the submission of applications to the electronic platform of the Special Secretariat for Private Debt Management. More specifically, she created, on 02/10/2023, Application No. …, which was definitively submitted on 30/01/2024, including the creditor’s claim, while the latter has now filed requests for correction, and her provision of additional information remains pending. Furthermore, her application remains fully in force, given that she has not received any notification of a decision by the creditors (including the respondent) not to submit a proposal for revision nor has it been rejected in any manner. Therefore, in accordance with the aforementioned provision of Article 18 of Law 4738/2020, this ground of opposition is legally founded and must be further examined on its merits. {..}

Moreover, it appears that on the day following the hearing of the present case, i.e., on 06/03/2024, the respondent served the opposing party with its letter dated 05/03/2024, calling upon her to negotiate a settlement of the disputed debt, or alternatively, to submit an application to the Electronic Platform of the Out-of-Court Debt Settlement Mechanism, which the opposing party has already done. In addition, her application remains fully in force, since there is no evidence that she has received a decision by the creditors (including the respondent) not to submit a proposal for revision, nor has the application been rejected by any means. Therefore, as set out above, the stay of enforcement measures under Article 18 of Law 4738/2020 applies in favor of the opposing party. Consequently, the eleventh supplementary ground of opposition is well-founded.”