February 2024

Judgment of the Athens Court of First Instance on the Annulment of the Auction of Real Estate, the Summary of the Auction Report and the Command for Property Recovery

The Athens Court of First Instance recently issued a decision (No. 71/2024) annulling a property auction that had taken place despite the prior signature of a debt settlement agreement between the debt collector and the debtor. At the same time, the summary of the auction report and the command for property recovery were annulled in the context of an attempt by the successful bidder to take possession and ownership of the property.

In the present case, two days before the auction of his house, the debtor managed to sign a contract to settle the debt, for which the auction was accelerated. The auction was cancelled on the original date for lack of bidders. Subsequently, despite the existence of the aforementioned agreement, the auctioneer submitted a declaration of continuation, with the result that a new date was set for the auction in question. Finally, the property was sold to a real estate company in which the debtor had an interest, despite the fact that the contract for the settlement of the debt in question contained, inter alia, a clause for the automatic suspension of individual proceedings against the debtor.

In the critical considerations of the judgment "From the foregoing, it follows that the first defendant conducted the auction in question in an unlawful manner, since, pursuant to the private agreement of 27/12/2021 for the recognition and settlement of debts, it had committed itself to the objectors not to take any legal action, including the holding of an auction, thereby creating a reasonable expectation on the part of the objectors that, for the period during which the private agreement of 27/12/2021 was in force, it would not pursue the amount due in court. In other words, its premature exercise has had onerous consequences for the debtors - the objectors - and in this way the auction appears to be unjustified and abusive".

As we have mentioned elsewhere: "In these cases, the law provides the remedy of opposition to the auction. This objection is the debtor's last resort, his last attempt to save his property. The time limit for lodging such an appeal is 60 days from the date on which the successful bidder copies the summary of the auction report given to him by the notary at the competent mortgage office (or land registry office). This summary is usually issued a few weeks after the auction and its delivery is subject to the payment of the auction premium by the successful bidder (see article 1005 of the CCP: "As soon as the successful bidder has paid the auction premium and the user fee, the auctioneer shall issue him with a summary of the auction report"). The objection to the auction is directed against the foreclosing lender and the successful bidder, who are also the ones who have every reason to maintain the validity of the auction. For the objection to be admissible, it must be entered in the claim registers of the relevant mortgage office or in the relevant land registry (see the relevant land registry). CCC 1010: "A notice of opposition to the annulment of an auction or re-auction of real property is inadmissible unless it is registered in the claims register of the district where the property is located within thirty days of its filing"). This registration also has consequences for the marketability of the property if the successful bidder wishes to resell it (it would be difficult for a third party to be interested in buying a property whose ownership is being contested in court)".

(for more see here)