November 2021

Judgment of the Athens Court of First Instance on the Annulment of Declarations of Forced Seizure of Claims Recovered by a Claims Management Company (Servicers)

The decision No. 374/2021 of the Athens Court of First Instance (appeals against enforcement) was published, which annulled two reports of forced seizure of real estate against our clients, accelerated by a loan management company. The court ruled that the disputed reports of forced seizure of immovable property are invalid, regardless of the existence of an element of harm in the person of the opponents, because the written form of the orders for execution, on the basis of which the seizure of the disputed immovable property of the opponents was carried out, was not complied with, as provided for in Article 927 of the Civil Code. In particular, those orders for execution - in the context of both seizure reports - were not written on or attached to the first executory certificate of the executory title, on the basis of which the contested enforcement proceedings were brought against the opponents, and the order for execution entered in the second report on the seizure of immovable property was also non-existent.  As the court typically ruled: '[...] Forced execution attempted by a bailiff without an order in the document, as required by law, is invalid. [...] In view, therefore, of the fact that the documentary constitutive form provided for in Article 927 of the CCP was not complied with for either of the two above-mentioned orders for execution on the basis of which the seizure of the contested properties of the opponents was carried out, and, especially as regards the seizure of the aforementioned property of the first opponent, there is not even the possibility of the order for execution referred to in the relevant order no. ...., both of the contested reports on the seizure of property are, as stated in the main recital, invalid, irrespective of whether the opponents have suffered damage, which is, however, self-evident in this case, due to the subsequent seizure of their property [...]'.