September 2022

Judgment of the Athens Court of First Instance on the annulment of an attachment report for an alleged claim of approximately 800,000 euros

The decision of the Athens Court of First Instance No. 1200/2022 was issued, according to which a property seizure report was annulled on the grounds that the termination of the loan in question was carried out by the bank in an abusive manner. As we have mentioned, one of the grounds that may be raised in an opposition to the annulment of the seizure report is the existence of a defective title for enforcement. In the present case, the instrument used to effect the foreclosure was an order for payment which, however, was held to have been invalidly issued because the termination of the loan had taken place improperly. This decision is of course of great importance to our clients in that if it is finally accepted that the termination was abusive, the borrower is returned to the situation he was in, i.e. a negotiating situation where the credit institution is obliged to show good faith and a willingness to compromise. 

The crucial passage of the judgment reads as follows: "The lending bank was indeed entitled, both by contract and by law, to terminate the contract in question, but the aforesaid termination (of 16-6-2017) in the circumstances in which it took place is held to be abusive and therefore void. There is no evidence to show that the bank had expressed its intention vg to discontinue its communication with the opponent, despite the financial hardship of the latter and to terminate the contract, which in view of the above is held to be abusive. The communication with the bank's employees had led the opponent to believe that a solution was more likely to be found than closing the account and terminating the contract. The consequences of the termination were onerous for the opponent, as she was asked to pay the above-mentioned outstanding balance immediately, and subsequently a payment order was issued against her and a seizure of her property was imposed. Therefore, since the said termination is invalid as being abusive, it did not have the legal effect of terminating the loan agreement and the amount of the loan did not become due and payable. In view of the foregoing, accepting the additional ground of appeal in question and making it unnecessary to examine the other grounds of appeal, it is necessary: a) to uphold the appeal in question b) to uphold the additional grounds of appeal c) to annul the attachment of the property referred to in the appeal, which was imposed on 13-1-2022...'.

(for more see here)