January 2022

Judgment of the Athens Court of First Instance on the Annulment of the Seizure Report

The decision of the Athens Single Judge Court of First Instance No. 35/2022 was recently issued in favour of our client, by which the latter's legal remedy (opposition to enforcement, pursuant to article 933 of the Code of Civil Procedure) against the enforcement proceedings of real estate, which was accelerated by a company managing receivables from loans and credits, was accepted. In particular, it was held that both the enforcement order and the subsequent report on the seizure of immovable property based on it were invalid because they were both based on an enforceable title (in this case, a payment order) which had, as a matter of law, already lost its validity at the commencement of the enforcement proceedings. In accordance with the specific provisions of Article 630A of the Code of Civil Procedure and, consequently, with the assumptions of the judgment, the payment order must be served at least once within two months of its publication at the residence of the alleged debtor, failing which it automatically ceases to have effect, with the result that enforcement proceedings leading to the auction of the immovable property in question cannot be initiated on the basis of it. In the present case, the payment order at issue, which constituted the enforceable title against the alleged debtor - our client, was first served on the latter after the aforementioned two-month period had elapsed, namely eight (8) years after its issuance. In the absence of proof from the opposing institution of earlier and timely service, the relevant plea was accepted only three days before the auction of her seized property. The decisive passage of the judgment reads as follows: 'It is not apparent from all the evidence adduced by the opposing party that service of the application No ...... payment order of the judge of this court to the defendant and, already, the opponent within the two-month period from the issue of the .... Since, therefore, the defendant, which has the burden of proof, has not proved service of the order for payment on the opposing party within two months of its issue, the enforceable title on which the enforceable acts are based has ceased to have effect as of right and must be annulled'. Indeed, the debtor's contention was that he had never been aware of the first service and even if he had been, it had not been effected legally.