The interim order of the Athens Court of First Instance of 27/7/2022 was published, on the basis of which the execution of a cheque served by the successful bidder after the auction and the preparation of an auction report was suspended. One of the main reasons put forward to justify the invalidity of the auction held was the following: More than one person (two in total) jointly participated in the auction in question in manifest violation of Article 959 para. 4 of the CCP (as it was in force before its recent amendment), according to which "The electronic auction is attended by bidders who have been previously certified in the electronic auction systems. Bidding by more than one bidder together is not possible'. The breach of the above provision entails the absolute nullity of the procedural act, i.e. in this case the auction (pursuant to Article 159 Article 1 of the CCP). As is acknowledged, express procedural nullity also exists in cases where the law uses other similar or equivalent to nullity formulations and expressions that are legally identical, corresponding or equivalent to it, such as e.g. For example, the procedural act "is invalid", "is not valid", "cannot be done", "is not possible", "is prohibited", "in order for the act to be valid", "is not valid" or "is only valid". It should be noted that in these cases invalidity occurs without the need to plead and prove procedural defects. And the relevant law (Law 4472/2017) had already prohibited the possibility of joint bidding by several bidders in electronic auctions in order to prevent the possible abusive collusion of several potential bidders who do not compete with each other, thus infringing the free electronic bidding. It is therefore clear that the reason for prohibiting joint bidding is based on the public interest, namely to protect the auction process from abusive collusion and any distortion. This is the reason for the use of the phrase 'not possible' in Article 959(1). 4 of the CCP which automatically refers to the absolute nullity of Article 159 par. This is because 'Invalidity, irrespective of the damage caused, is declared in cases of infringement of procedural rules in the public interest. In this case the parties (and in particular the opposing party of the party who acted) do not have the power of disposal. For this reason, the annulment is pronounced irrespective of the conduct of the party, and even more so irrespective of the damage caused to him' (Beis, Civil Code, p. 159, p. 826).
The application for interim measures and in particular the application for an interim order is the first step to protect the owner of the property that has already been auctioned and wishes to challenge the validity of the auction.
(for more see here)
Read all the court rulings